sign in sign up
<<
Home , 17th parallel south, Antarctic starry skate, Argentine angelshark, California butterfly ray, Cape elephantfish, Deania

Original language: English AC31 Inf. 18 (English only / seulement en anglaise / únicamente en inglés)

CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ______

Thirty-first meeting of the Committee Online, 31 May, 1, 4, 21 and 22 June 2021

Species specific matters

Sharks and rays ( spp.)

IMPROVING SYNERGIES BETWEEN REGIONAL BODIES AND CITES PARTIES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE CATCH, TRADE AND MANAGEMENT OF SHARKS1

1. This document has been submitted by Germany in relation to agenda item 25.*

2. This document was commissioned2 by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Germany (BfN) with funding from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) follow up on CITES implementation issues with Regional Fishery Bodies identified by the CITES Animals and Standing Committees Working Groups, as noted in CoP18 Doc. 68.1, CoP18 Doc. 68.2, and traceability issues for noted in CoP18 Doc. 42.

3. The purpose of this document is to identify the opportunities for further harmonizing the efforts of Regional Fishery Bodies and CITES Authorities to progress the sustainable and legal harvest of sharks listed in CITES Appendix II, recognising that their common objectives are the recovery of depleted stocks, delivering sustainable and trade, and reducing the future need for strict protection measures.

1 The term “sharks” refers to all species of sharks, skates, rays and (cartilaginous , Class ). * The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat (or the United Nations Environment Programme) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author. 2 Authors are Sarah Fowler, Amie Bräutigam, Nicola Okes and Glenn Sant. Sarah Fowler, Amie Bräutigam, Nicola Okes and Glenn Sant

Conservation, Fisheries, Trade and Management Status of CITES- Listed Sharks

BfN-Skripten in prep.

2021

Conservation, Fisheries, Trade and Management Status of CITES-Listed Sharks

Sarah Fowler Amie Bräutigam Nicola Okes Glenn Sant

Cover picture: Silky Shark falciformis (Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch) Authors‘ addresses: Sarah Fowler 15 Bakers Place, Plymouth, PL1 4LX, UK E-Mail: [email protected] Amie Bräutigam 4514 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20008, USA E-Mail: [email protected] Nicola Okes Cape Town, Email: [email protected] Glenn Sant Senior Advisor, Fisheries Trade and Traceability, TRAFFIC, c/o: University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, E-Mail: [email protected] Scientific Supervision at BfN: Dr. Timm Reinhardt Fachgebiet II 1.1. ”Zoologischer Artenschutz“ Wildlife Conservation Unit This study was funded by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety as Research & Development project (no. FKZ 3519532052).

This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de) BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade. A pdf version can be downloaded from the internet at: http://www.bfn.de/skripten.html. Publisher: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn, Germany URL: http://www.bfn.de The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties. Views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publisher. This series is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution – No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY - ND 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.en). Printed by the printing office of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Printed on 100% recycled paper. ISBN 978-3-89624-xxx-x DOI 10.19217/skr Bonn, Germany 2021

Table of Contents

Preface ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Background ...... 3 3 The of major commercial shark species ...... 4 3.1 IUCN Red List assessments ...... 4 3.2 Other sources of information on status ...... 7 4 Threats to chondrichthyan fishes (sharks, rays and chimaeras) ...... 8 5 Fisheries and Trade status ...... 11 5.1 Catch data ...... 11 5.2 Trade data ...... 13 5.3 Catch and trade in CITES-listed species, and other abundant shark taxa ...... 20 5.4 Risk of ...... 23 6 Management status ...... 24 6.1 International management ...... 24 6.2 Regional Management ...... 27 6.3 National management...... 34 7 Conclusions ...... 37 References ...... 39

List of Figures Figure 1. Red List assessments for all Chondrichthyans, and for CITES-listed species...... 4 Figure 2. Change in the Red List status of oceanic sharks and rays, 1980–2018...... 5 Figure 3. Past spawning biomass trend and future projections for North Atlantic Shortfin mako. .. 7 Figure 4. Major threats to chondrichthyan fishes ...... 8 Figure 5. Proportions of CITES-listed and unlisted chondrichthyan fishes affected by fishing ..... 10 Figure 6. Catch trends in the top 20 shark fishing countries, 2007–2018...... 12 Figure 7. Global shark meat trade, quantity and value, 2008–2019...... 14 Figure 8. The top 20 importers of shark meat, 2008–2019...... 14 Figure 9. Global shark fin trade, quantity and value, 2000–2018 ...... 15 Figure 10. Major shark fin importers and their average annual reported imports, 2000–2016. .... 16 Figure 11. Major trade flows of national shark meat imports, 2015–2019...... 17 Figure 12. Major trade flows of national shark fin imports 2015–2019 ...... 18

List of Tables Table 1. Conservation status of sharks and rays listed in the Appendices to CITES and CMS ..... 6 Table 2. Threats to the chondrichthyan fishes ...... 8 Table 3. Threats to chondrichthyan fishes from different scales of fishery ...... 9 Table 4. Threats to Appendix II pelagic sharks & rays from different scales of fishery ...... 9 Table 5. Red List Index of selected groups of chondrichthyans and CITES-listed species ...... 10

i

Table 6. Top 20 shark catchers, 2007-2018 ...... 11 Table 7. Shark product HS codes used in trade, 2008–2019...... 14 Table 8. Taxa identified from the Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun fin markets, Hong Kong ...... 19 Table 9. Regional and international protected status of CITES-listed pelagic sharks and rays .... 26 Table 10. RFMO management status of sharks and rays listed in the CITES Appendices ...... 29 Table 11. Regional Plans of Action (RPOA) or Guidance under the FAO IPOA–Sharks ...... 32 Table 12. Responses to the FAO IPOA–Sharks by top 40 shark catching entities ...... 36

Annexes Annex 1. CITES Appendix II shark species Management risk by unit/stock countries of origin, major fishery types, primary uses in trade and availability of data ...... 41 Annex 2. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with current Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) for sharks, rays and chimaeras ...... 48 Annex 3. Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) of relevance to or engaged in shark conservation and management ...... 53 Annex 4. Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs) ...... 55 Annex 5. Shark and ray species listed in Multilateral Environmental Agreements and referenced in fisheries conservation and management measures ...... 57 Annex 6. Capture production by species and groups of species, 2009–2018...... 59 Annex 7. a) Resolution Conference 12.6 (Rev. CoP18): Conservation and management of Sharks ...... 64 b) CoP 18 Decisions on sharks and rays ...... 66

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to the experts who have assisted by reviewing this report, particularly Shelley Clarke, Daniel Kachelriess, and colleagues from the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). Thank you.

ii

Preface

The impact of fisheries supplying international trade has increased concerns about the conservation of these species of sharks and rays for over two decades. Meanwhile, 14 species of pelagic sharks and 27 rays are listed in the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix II. Many of them are still recorded in fisheries and trade, including species prohibited in the pelagic fisheries and regulated by tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (tRFMOs). The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation of Germany (BfN) has supported many of the CITES shark listings and has contributed to their implementation by capacity building measures and relevant workshops, such as the development of guidelines for making non-detriment findings (NDFs) for sharks.

FAO Members and CITES Parties regularly urge closer engagement and coordination between bodies of environment and fisheries, in order to improve the status of sharks, while recognising shared common objectives for the recovery of depleted stocks, and achieving sustainable fisheries and trade. The BfN has commissioned the present report, summarising the conservation, trade, and management status of sharks and rays, and outlining the activities of Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs – advisory and management) for the conservation and management of pelagic species. The report addresses both conservationists and fisheries authorities informing about the conservation status as well as existing conservation measures for all CITES listed shark and ray species.

The conservation status of many CITES Appendix II-listed sharks is still deteriorating, including species that are major sources of shark fins in international trade, while the listed shark-like rays from shallow coastal are among the world’s most threatened cartilaginous fishes. There are slight signs of recovery for only a few shark species, listed nearly 20 years ago. The report shows that fishing affects every CITES-listed shark species. It however also addresses the potential for sustainable use and trade under conservation measures by CITES and relevant Regional fishery bodies (RFBs) on a species-specific basis.

Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel

President of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

p. 1

1 Introduction

This status report was commissioned by the German Federal Agency of Nature Conservation on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. It reviews the threats to shark1 species, their conservation, trade and management status, and the contributions of Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) to the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for sharks listed in the CITES Appendices. This stock-taking exercise provides a basis for analyzing the potential to further harmonize the efforts of CITES and RFBs (including the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations – RFMOs) in delivering their common objectives for the protection and sustainable management of sharks, including recovery of depleted stocks, legal and sustainable fisheries and trade.

Related project activities, not reported here, include a survey of the views of environment and fisheries experts and practitioners from CITES Parties, RFBs and other non-governmental sectors on options for improving collaboration between their respective agencies.

Webinars convened by BfN and BMU will discuss project findings and consider practical opportunities to advance joint work and tap into synergies between the shark conservation and management programmes and mandates of government wildlife and fisheries agencies, RFBs and CITES.

The aim is to identify cooperative strategies that can deliver more effectively the conservation and management of sharks, including their legal and sustainable use when appropriate, and to reduce the future need for strict protection measures. Depending upon the outcomes of the above activities, the BMU is considering convening a high-level conference of policy-makers to discuss steps towards implementation.

1 The term “sharks” is used here to refer to all species of sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras (the cartilaginous fishes, Class Chondrichthyes). Elasmobranch fishes include the sharks, skates and rays; batoid fishes are the skates and rays.

p. 2

2 Background

Fourteen species of pelagic sharks, 11 pelagic rays and 16 coastal rays have been listed in CITES Appendix II since 2002 (Table 1). Many of these species were historically targeted by fisheries, all are or have been a secondary catch or , and some of those listed by CITES in 2013, 2016 and 2019 are still fished and traded in significant volumes. (The Appendix I-listed sawfishes, Pristidae, which may not be traded commercially, and Appendix III-listed freshwater stingrays, Potamotrygonidae, are not considered in this document.)

FAO Members and CITES Parties2 have for many years, at their respective meetings, urged closer engagement and coordination between national environment and fisheries departments in order to improve the conservation and management of sharks. The important role of Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs), including both the advisory RFBs and the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), has also been recognised, most recently in the updated Resolution Conf.12.6 (Rev. CoP18) (Annex 7). Indeed, several tuna Regional Fishery Management Organisations (tRFMOs) had already prohibited the retention of some threatened pelagic shark species before they were listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Since the listing of several shark species in CITES Appendix II at CoP16 in 2013, an unprecedented number of projects and activities have been delivered to assist Parties with the implementation of these listings. These capacity-building activities have been undertaken with funding from the European Union, the support of many other Parties and stakeholders, and in close collaboration between the CITES and FAO Secretariats.

The CITES and FAO Secretariats cooperate under a joint MOU (2006) and a subsequent agreement for activities to support Parties in the implementation of marine species listings. They convened regional workshops in West Africa, Asia and Africa during 2014 to review CITES implementation issues and formulate recommendations and priorities for improving the capacities of CITES Management Authorities and their fisheries counterparts to fulfil their CITES obligations for these species. While outcomes varied, there was much congruence between the issues identified and recommendations formulated; many were incorporated in the Decisions adopted by CITES CoP17 and the design of a second phase of EU-funded capacity building (2017–2020). They identified the need for strengthened regional and international collaborations; stronger conservation and management measures; improved national legislation and enforcement (monitoring, control and surveillance); and better data collection, harmonisation and exchange mechanisms (Anonymous 2014 a, b, c). A further workshop was held in March 2017, attended by staff from the Secretariats of CITES, FAO and several RFBs, to discuss lessons learned during the implementation of these activities, future opportunities for cooperation, and priorities for capacity-building. In many cases, implementing these recommendations necessitates the adoption of long-term initiatives; progress towards these goals requires several small steps. While some good headway has been made, many of these steps may require political and/or financial support, and further capacity-building.

Despite these efforts, however, there has not been a global evaluation of individual RFB activities directed at improving the conservation and management status of the shark species listed in Appendix II (or for unlisted species). Neither has there been an assessment of the overall contribution of the CITES listings to improving the conservation and management of pelagic shark species. This report lists relevant RFMO Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs), as a first step towards the former, but has not identified sufficient data to evaluate the latter, particularly for shark species listed within the past decade.

2 Disclaimer: The designations of geographical entities in this document, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the authors concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

p. 3

3 The conservation status of major commercial shark species

IUCN Red List assessments

A decade ago, the IUCN Shark Specialist Group completed the first global Red List assessment of the relative risk of extinction faced by all chondrichthyans (sharks, rays and chimaeras). One- quarter of all species were found to be threatened3 due to (targeted and incidental). Large-bodied, shallow-water species were at greatest risk, with over 50% of coastal, continental shelf, and pelagic species over 100cm long threatened. The analysis concluded that improved management of fisheries and trade is urgently needed to avoid extinctions and promote population recovery (Dulvy et al. 2014).

Ten years later, a global reassessment programme is almost complete, with fewer than 20% of IUCN Red List assessments not yet updated in January 2021. About 27% of chondrichthyans assessed are threatened (Figure 1, source www.iucnredlist.org). Interim results confirm that large-bodied, shallow-water species still face the greatest threats, and that an even higher proportion of large-bodied coastal, continental shelf and pelagic species than was recognised in the 2000s have a heightened risk of extinction. A few Red List changes are ‘non-genuine’, due to more data on historical risks and population status having become available, but most up-listings into a more threatened Red List category reflect a genuine deterioration in status. Such deterioration is particularly pronounced in the oceanic pelagic sharks and rays listed in CITES Appendix II, most of which are a bycatch or target of fisheries managed by the tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (tRFMOs), and Appendix II large coastal rays.

Critically Endangered (5.7%) Near Threatened (2.2%)

Endangered (8.2%) Data Deficient Vulnerable (20.3%) (19.6%) Critically Endangered Vulnerable (45.7%) (12.7%)

Near Threatened (9.4%) Endangered Least Concern (32.6%) (43.6%)

Figure 1. IUCN Red List assessments for all 1,186 chondrichthyan species (left), and 46 species listed in CITES Appendix II (right). Source: www.iucnredlist.org January 2021.

When first analysed, 50% of oceanic pelagic species were found to be threatened (Dulvy et al. 2008; Camhi et al. 2009). The status of 27 sharks and four rays has now been reassessed, and Red List assessments back-cast to 1970 to examine the 50-year population trends of 18 data-rich species (Pacoureau et al. 2021). The new analyses concluded that the global abundance of oceanic sharks and rays had declined by 71% from 1970 to 2018, at a steady rate averaging 18.2% per decade. In 1980, two-thirds of oceanic shark species were Least

3 Threatened: Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU), based on population size reductions over three generations (often 50–100 years for large slow-growing sharks and rays) from the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.

p. 4

Concern and nine species were threatened. Now, over three-quarters are threatened. This decline is attributed to an 18-fold increase in relative fishing pressure while catch rates tripled. It does not take into account declines driven by fisheries before 1970, or under-estimates of unreported catches and discard mortality.

Figure 2 presents trends in extinction risk since 1980 for the 31 species of oceanic sharks and rays developed by Pacoureau et al. (2021). Twenty-two of the 23 threatened oceanic species are listed in CITES Appendix II. The patterns of declines differ between oceans and relative shark body size classes. Pelagic sharks in the Atlantic were the first to be heavily exploited, from the early 1900s. Their abundances continued to decline steadily from 1970 and began to stabilize at low levels after 2000. North Pacific Ocean pelagic sharks were also fished in the early 1900s. Their abundances fell steeply from 1970 to 1990, then decreased at a slower rate thereafter. In the , there has been a steep decline since 1970 of about 85% (range 76–92%). Abundance of the largest-bodied species fell most steeply before the 1980s, medium-sized species declined next, and finally the relatively small-bodied species. Tropical sharks also declined more steeply than temperate species (despite the more resilient life histories of the former).

CR, Critically Endangered; EN, Endangered; VU, Vulnerable; NT, Near Threatened; LC, Least Concern.

Figure 2. Change in the Red List status of oceanic sharks and rays, 1980–2018, and dates Appendix II listings entered into force. Adapted from Fig. 3b in Pacoureau et al. 2021.

The Cetorhinus maximus (assessed as Vulnerable when listed in CITES Appendix II in 2002) is an example of a non-genuine change in status. New analyses indicate that populations experienced greater declines over the past 100 years (the three-generation period) than originally believed; it should have been classified as Endangered when originally assessed. Recent reports of some depleted stocks stabilising, and a possible recovery in the Northeast Atlantic following cessation of target fishing, are too recent to influence the overall global assessment for this very long-lived species. However, a combination of 15 years of international trade regulation discouraging unsustainable fisheries, protected status in many EEZs and some zero quotas will be aiding recovery. Although the Carcharodon and porbeagle nasus are still assessed as Vulnerable, some

p. 5 stocks of these species are also showing signs of recovery. However, stocks of the world’s most heavily protected , Carcharhinus longimanus, which had been prohibited in all tRFMO fisheries before Appendix II came into effect in 2014, have nonetheless continued to decline. It is unclear to what extent this is affected by lower catch reports following adoption of the non-retention measures.

Among the coastal and shelf species at highest risk of extinction, two species of sawfishes ( Pristidae) are Endangered and three Critically Endangered; all five species are listed in CITES Appendix I. The giant guitarfishes (six species in family Glaucostegidae, all Critically Endangered) and wedgefishes (nine out of ten species in family Rhinidae are Critically Endangered) face an even higher risk of extinction (Kyne et al. 2020); in 2019, these two families were listed in CITES Appendix II. These coastal and shelf species are not captured in the pelagic fisheries managed by the tRFMOs. Of the other RFMOs, only the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) has adopted management measures for some of these taxa.

Table 1. Conservation status of sharks and rays listed in the Appendices to CITES and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Common name Species CITES Effective Red List Year CMS Year Pelagic thresher Alopias pelagicus pelagic II 2017 EN 2019 II 2014 shark Bigeye Alopias superciliosus pelagic II 2017 VU 2019 II 2014 Alopias vulpinus pelagic II 2017 VU 2019 II 2014 Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis pelagic II 2017 VU 2017 II 2014 Oceanic whitetip Carcharhinus pelagic II 2014 CR 2019 I 2020 shark longimanus Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus pelagic II 2003 EN 2019 I, II 2005 White shark Carcharodon carcharias pelagic II 2005 VU 2019 II 2002 Shortfin mako shark oxyrinchus pelagic II 2019 EN 2019 II 2008 Longfin mako shark Isurus paucus pelagic II 2019 EN 2019 II 2008 Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus pelagic II 2014 VU 2019 II 2008 1999- Rhincodon typus pelagic II 2003 EN 2016 I, II 2018 Scalloped pelagic/ Sphyrna lewini II 2014 CR 2019 II 2014 Hammerhead coastal pelagic/ Sphyrna mokarran II 2014 CR 2019 II 2014 coastal pelagic/ Sphyrna zygaena II 2014 VU 2019 I 2020 coastal pelagic/ 2018 & Manta rays Mobula (Manta), 2 spp. II 2014 VU, EN I, II 2014 coastal 2020 pelagic/ 2019 & Mobulid/devil rays Mobula, 9 spp. II 2017 2 VU, 7 EN I, II 2014 coastal 2020 Sawfishes Pristidae, 5 sp. coastal I 2007 2 EN, 3 CR 2013 I, II 2014 Giant guitarfishes Glaucostegidae, 6 spp. coastal II 2019 All CR 2019 Wedgefishes Rhinidae, 10 spp. coastal II 2019 9 CR, 1 NT 2019 II** 2017 Key to IUCN Red List assessments. CR: Critically Endangered; EN: Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; NT: Near Threatened. Most species listed in the CMS Appendices are included in the Annex to the CMS Migratory Sharks Memorandum of Understanding. ** One Wedgefish species (Rhynchobatus australiae) is listed in Appendix II of CMS.

p. 6

Other sources of information on status

Stock status is also evaluated regularly by national fisheries departments or Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) for the relatively small number of species that are important in fisheries or are a significant bycatch (incidental catch). These assessments take the form of quantitative fisheries stock assessments, or Environmental Risk Assessments (ERAs), which often integrate biological vulnerability and exposure to fisheries to provide a relative ranking of risk to each species. Where adequate data are available, stock assessments can provide estimates of original (virgin) and current population size (sometimes including estimates of the number of mature females present), and future trajectories under different fishing scenarios (see example in Figure 3). They form the basis for the scientific advice prepared by RFBs for their members and are discussed when considering management options, which may range from quotas to gear restrictions and complete prohibitions. However, as Figure 3 demonstrates, many stock assessments are highly uncertain, particularly in the early years when data availability is poor. This makes it important for regular reviews to take place.

When available, shark and ray stock assessments and ERAs are integrated into the IUCN Red List assessment process. Indeed, Pacoureau et al. (2021) used 57 time-series datasets for 18 species, including stock assessments, in their analysis. However, limited resources for Red Listing and over 1,000 species requiring assessment every decade means that fisheries assessments are reviewed more regularly than Red List Assessments for the same species. Furthermore, Red List assessments are primarily global in nature, with regional assessments often given a lower priority; it is not possible to update them annually or biennially. The added value of the Red List assessment process is derived from its global coverage of the entire taxonomic group, and the ability to develop Red List indices that can be used to illustrate changes in status over time.

Key:

Coloured lines represent Total Allowable Catches from zero (red, upper) to 4,000 mt (blue, lower), in 100 mt increments. B = Biomass. Bmsy = Biomass that can produce maximum sustainable yield. Points above the central horizontal line indicate that the spawning stock is in good status (B/Bmsy ≥ 1).

Figure 3. Past spawning biomass trend and future projections for North Atlantic Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) from four modelled scenarios. (From ICCAT SCRS 2019.)

p. 7

4 Threats to chondrichthyan fishes (sharks, rays and chimaeras)

The IUCN Red List website lists the known threats to every chondrichthyan species assessed (1,186 in January 2021). These data are summarised in the following pages. Table 2 shows the numbers and percentages of species affected by each major category of threat for marine (1,168) and freshwater species (26 obligate freshwater species and 14 species that can move from the sea, through , into rivers and lakes). Overall, fishing poses the most widespread and serious threat to the chondrichthyans, affecting 1,063 species (89.6%), while only 148 species are recorded also to be affected by one or more other forms of threat. Inshore and freshwater species are at greatest risk from multiple threats. Regarding the 316 CR, EN or VU species: all are threatened by fishing, but an additional 133 pressures are reported for these taxa, with (inter alia) 55 threatened species also affected by urban, commercial or tourism developments, 22 by pollution, and 19 by aquaculture. Conversely, 148 species are not recorded as being affected by any fishing activity, but experience other impacts. Only for 86 of the 517 Least Concern species have no threats been recorded so far.

Table 2. Threats to the chondrichthyan fishes. (From www.iucnredlist.org, January 2021) Marine species Species in All species Broad categories of threat (N=1,068) freshwater (N=40) (N=1,186) N % N % N % Biological resource use 1,045 90.2% 34 85.0% 1,066 89.9% Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources 1,063 89.6% Logging & wood harvesting 8 0.7% Residential & commercial development 70 6.0% 19 47.5% 82 6.9% Pollution 34 2.9% 16 40.0% 43 3.6% Natural system modifications (dams) 18 1.6% 16 40.0% 29 2.4% Climate change (mainly habitat alteration) 24 2.1% 4 10.0% 25 2.1% Aquaculture (primarily) & agriculture 20 1.7% 3 7.5% 23 1.9% Mining; oil and gas extraction 19 1.6% 5 12.5% 22 1.9% Human disturbance (recreational activities) 17 1.5% 0 0.0% 17 1.4% Transport & service corridors 3 0.3% 1 2.5% 3 0.3% Invasive & other problem species, disease 3 0.3% 0 0.0% 3 0.3% No threats reported 86 7.4% 0 0.0% 86 7.3%

Figure 4. Major threats to chondrichthyan fishes. (www.iucnredlist.org, January 2021)

p. 8

The IUCN Red List further divides fishing into the sub-categories listed in Table 3. Many species, particularly in coastal areas, are affected by several types of fishery – for example, a single species may be a target of some fisheries but bycaught in others, and also captured in both large and small-scale fisheries. This is why totals in the right-hand column exceed 100%.

Table 3. Threats to all chondrichthyan fishes from different scales of fishery (Source: www.iucnredlist.org, January 2021) Number of all species Percentage of 1,186 species Threat affected affected Unintentional effects: 1045 88% Industrial/large-scale fisheries bycatch 985 83% Bycatch, subsistence/ small scale fisheries 621 52% Intentional use: 314 26% Target subsistence/small scale fisheries 262 22% Target Industrial/large-scale fisheries 192 16% Persecution/ control 21 2% Not threatened by fishing 87 7%

All of the 21 species that are the subject of “persecution or control” are also taken, generally in much larger numbers, in target and/or bycatch fisheries. They include species caught in the beach protection programmes that target large predatory sharks, including great white shark, or which are killed because they damage fishing gears (e.g. sawfishes and basking sharks), or are a nuisance if they depredate fishers’ catches.

Table 4 focuses solely upon the threats to the pelagic sharks and rays listed in CITES Appendix II. All are threatened by excessive fisheries mortality, but a much larger percentage of Appendix II species than of all species combined is taken in target fisheries (including as a valuable secondary retained catch of fisheries that primarily target other species). However, species are listed in Appendix II precisely because they have been seriously depleted by the fisheries that are the source of the valuable products that enter international trade.

Table 4. Threats to Appendix II pelagic sharks & rays from different scales of fishery. (Source: www.iucnredlist.org, January 2021) Number of Appendix II Percentage of species Threat species affected affected Unintentional effects: Industrial/large-scale fisheries bycatch 25 100% Subsistence/small scale fisheries bycatch 25 100%

Intentional use: Target subsistence/small scale fisheries 24 96% Target Industrial/large-scale fisheries 23 92% Persecution/control 1 4%

Figure 5 illustrates the data in Tables 3 and 4. Over 90% of CITES-listed shark and ray species are recorded in the Red List as being targeted by at least some fisheries, versus only 22% of all chondrichthyans, whereas 100% of CITES Appendix II species and over 50% of all species are taken unintentionally, as bycatch. Small scale and subsistence fisheries target and retain bycatch of a significantly larger number of all species than do large-scale/industrial fisheries, although the difference for those listed in CITES Appendix II is small. Many sharks and rays

p. 9 bycaught in industrial fisheries may be discarded, and some of these could survive. Subsistence/small-scale fisheries, which operate in more biodiverse coastal areas, not only target a slightly larger number of species than industrial fisheries, but also retain a larger proportion of their bycatch (in such cases, bycatch is actually a secondary non-target catch).

Figure 5. Proportions of CITES-listed and unlisted chondrichthyan fishes affected by fishing. (Source: www.iucnredlist.org, December 2020)

IUCN Red List data may also be used to develop Red List Indices, which are a measure of the relative risk of extinction of taxa or other species groups. The Red List Index is increasingly being used by governments to track progress towards targets for reducing biodiversity loss (https://www.iucnredlist.org/assessment/red-list-index). Table 5 presents Red List Indices in descending order of threat for the most threatened families, identifying CITES-listed species, and for the major taxonomic groups of chondrichthyans.

Table 5. Red List Index of selected groups of chondrichthyans and CITES-listed species. (Source: www.iucnredlist.org, January 2021, and Pacoureau et al 2021) Taxonomic group (number of species) Red List Index CITES Appendix Family Glaucostegidae, giant guitarfishes (6) 0.20 II Family Rhinidae, wedgefishes (10) 0.26 II Family Pristidae, sawfishes (5) 0.28 I Family Sphyrnidae, hammerheads (9) 0.30 II (3 species) Family , gulper sharks (16) 0.52 None listed Family Mobulidae, mantas and devil rays (9) 0.58 II Family , sharks (5) 0.60 II (4 species) All oceanic shark species (31) – see Figure 2 0.56 II (23 species) All batoid species (602) 0.77 n/a All shark species (536) 0.80 n/a All species (52) 0.94 n/a A Red List Index of 1 indicates that all species are Least Concern; an Index of 0 would mean that all species are extinct.

This brief overview of their conservation and threat status highlights the importance of strengthening fisheries management to reduce excessive or unsustainable shark mortality, whether in target or bycatch fisheries. This is equally important for unlisted threatened and near threatened species as it is for the pelagic shark and ray species listed in the CITES Appendices.

p. 10

5 Fisheries and Trade status4

Globally, industrial and artisanal fleets supply markets in Asia for shark and ray fins and processed meat products (e.g. balls and surimi), while the meat of the same captured sharks in fillet form is increasingly being diverted along separate supply channels to meet demand in growing markets in Europe and (Dent and Clarke, 2015). Although statistical data on landings and trade in shark and ray products are available for many decades, this study focused primarily on the most recent decade for which data are available (albeit with some FAO catch data still provisional) from 2008 to 2019.

Catch data

Catches of sharks5 have been reported to FAO since 1950 (FAO, 2020). The total rose steadily to a peak of 888 336 metric tonnes (mt) in 2000 and has been declining slowly since then, to some 750 000 mt per year, ranging between 700 000 and 800 000 mt. Nearly 80% of recent catches were reported from the and adjacent seas (37%, with the largest from the Eastern Central, Southwest, Northeast and Northwest), the Pacific Ocean (33%, predominantly from the Western Central, Eastern Central and Northwest), and the Indian Ocean (26%). The top 20 shark catchers6 for the period 2007–2018 are listed in Table 6, with trends in catches illustrated in Figure 6. Indonesia, India and Spain remain the top three shark catchers, as in previous analyses (Lack and Sant, 2009; Dent and Clarke, 2015).

Table 6. Top 20 shark catchers, 2007-2018. (Source: FAO FishStat 2020.) Mean catch/ Mean catch/ Rank Country Rank Country year (mt) year (mt) 1 Indonesia 111 445 12 Portugal 17 039 2 Spain 76 761 13 France 17 011 3 India 65 285 14 15 348 4 42 260 15 Iran (Islamic Rep. of) 12 668 5 of America 37 260 16 10 836 6 Argentina 32 573 17 Korea, Republic of 9 948 7 (Prov. of ) 32 543 18 Yemen 9 289 8 Malaysia 21 158 19 Pakistan 8 284 9 19 938 20 7 540 10 Nigeria 19 194 Others 161 012 11 17 589 Total 744 980

Fischer et al. (2012) identified 26 shark catchers reporting >1% of global catches each. The seven largest accounted for ~48% of global chondrichthyan catches during 2000–2009 and, albeit in a different order, are the same top seven listed in Table 6. During the decade to 2017, however, these largest catchers’ share of a smaller global reported catch had increased to 59%. Indonesia and Spain’s reported catches had risen by about 4% and 5%, respectively, and increased catches reported by Mexico and USA offset a minor decline by Taiwan. Two countries, Canada and the United Kingdom, had significantly reduced catches, due to more restrictive fisheries management measures. They now produce <1% of global catches.

4 Section 4 draws on Okes.N & Sant.G (2019), An overview of major global shark traders, catchers and species. TRAFFIC. https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/major-global-shark-traders-catchers-and-species/ 5 For the purposes of this overview, when referring to the catches of the FAO grouping of sharks, rays and chimaera species, they are called ‘sharks’, unless otherwise stated. 6 The term “shark catchers” refers to countries, territories and other political entities reporting shark catch to FAO.

p. 11

Reported catches by Thailand have also fallen significantly, from 2.6% of global reported catch to <1%. Conversely, Ecuador, Oman and Tanzania now report >1% of global catches. During 2000–2009, the 26 shark catchers reporting >1% of global catches were responsible for 85% of the total. By 2017, there were 24 entities reporting >1% of the total, and these produced 91% of the global catch. The top 40 list of shark catchers is unchanged (see Table 12, p.41).

900,000 Others Ecuador 800,000 Pakistan Yemen 700,000 Korea, Republic of Peru 600,000 Iran (Islamic Rep. of) Japan 500,000 France Portugal 400,000 New Zealand Nigeria 300,000 Brazil Malaysia 200,000 Argentina Production quantity (metric Production quantity (metric tonnes) Taiwan Province of China 100,000 United States of America Mexico 0 India Spain Indonesia Figure 6. Chondrichthyan catch trends in the top 20 shark fishing countries, 2007–2018.

A total of 153 species of sharks and a further 28 taxonomic groupings of shark, ray and chimaera species are recorded as caught by international fisheries worldwide (FAO, 2019). Although landings may be recorded at species level within a country, the majority of catches are recorded in general shark groups and not at species level when aggregated for submission to the FAO (Cashion et al. 2019). In 2008, 76% of all shark catches were recorded under broad groupings and only 24% at the species level. The most commonly used group was ‘Sharks, rays, skates etc, nei’ (nei: not elsewhere recorded), with 35% of all shark catches recorded in FishStat under this category. There has been slight improvement over the last ten years (Cashion et al. 2019), with more catches being recorded at the species level in some regions. In 2017, 62% of global reported catches were recorded within taxonomic groupings, including 19% under the category ‘Sharks, rays, skates etc, nei’, and 38% at species level. These analyses do not permit estimates of the quantities of sharks (and other taxa) that are reported as unidentified fishes. A few countries with large landings of marine fishes still do not report any catches of sharks and rays.

Because a large proportion of the catch is recorded in broad taxonomic categories, it is difficult to identify many global-level taxon-specific trends in reported catches. However, changes in catch per grouping and species are tabled in Annex 6. Catch trends for some frequently- recorded CITES-listed species and the unlisted but important are highlighted here:

Blue shark Prionace glauca FishStat records start in 1950, when FAO records begin but very few other sharks were being reported. Global catches rose steadily from the late 1990s, when blue shark comprised about 5% of all landings, to 81 437 mt (11%) by 2008 and steeply to >130 000 mt in 2011. They peaked at 137 973 mt (almost 18%) in 2013 before declining rapidly

p. 12 to 103 528 mt in 2017 and 100 000 mt in 2018 (FAO, 2020). Because there were no regional catch limits until ICCAT established TACs in 2019, this may indicate a genuine population decrease. However, 16% of reported global shark catch is still comprised of blue shark.

Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis reported landings in the Eastern Indian Ocean, the majority of which are by Sri Lanka, have been declining since reaching a peak of nearly 25 000 mt in 1999. They had fallen to 4 610 mt by 2010, 632 mt in 2017 and 715 mt in 2018. Although most tuna RFMOs have prohibited landings of silky shark (e.g. ICCAT since 2012, WCPFC since 2014 and IATTC since 2017), this species is not prohibited in the Indian Ocean. These falling catches are likely due to a population decline, although FishStat data for the Atlantic and Pacific do not reflect the concerns that led to RFMO prohibitions in these oceans. The CITES Appendix II listing of silky shark came into effect in 2017.

Mobulid rays (Family Mobulidae) FAO reported landings of ‘Mantas, devil rays nei’ have almost doubled over the past decade. Some of this increase may be due to improved taxonomic reporting, and some to new fisheries supplying developing markets for mobulid plates. Catches in the Eastern Indian Ocean rose from 136 mt in 2008 to 2 647 mt in 2016, and peaked in the Western Central Pacific at 5 857 mt in 2018. The majority of landings in these ocean regions were reported by Indonesia, followed by Sri Lanka. IATTC prohibited landing or retention of mobulids in 2015, followed by GFCM in 2018 and both IOTC and WCPFC in 2019. The CITES Appendix II listing of the largest Manta rays came into effect in 2014, and all other Mobula species in 2017.

Trade data

Shark catches are exported as either meat (usually fresh or frozen) or fins (dried or frozen), and products in trade are recorded using the World Customs Organization (WCO) Harmonised System (HS). Table 7 presents the HS codes and their descriptions for shark products in trade used to source country specific data from UN Comtrade (the UN International Trade Statistics Database). The trade dynamics and consumer markets for meat and fin products are quite different and are therefore summarised separately here. Since shark fin specific codes were only available from 2012 from UN Comtrade, data on shark fin trade was sourced from FAO (2020), and data on shark meat was sourced from UN Comtrade (2008–2019).

As noted by Dent and Clarke (2015), species data are only rarely identified in trade records for shark meat and never for shark fins (outside the CITES trade database). As a result, it has not been possible to identify shifts in utilization between species, for example, when less-resilient species are fished down or enter management, and more-prolific, unrestricted species such as blue shark replace them in global markets. New research (see below), however, will now allow species-specific trends to be monitored in the shark fin markets of Hong Kong SAR and mainland China.

Meat: An annual average of 114 000 mt of shark meat products were reported as imported over the period 2008–2019. Both quantities traded and reported value have declined since 2011 (Figure 7) with the average value of imports being USD 283 000 per year. The majority of reported imports were traded in frozen form (on average 87% of annual imports) and fresh form (average 13%).

The top 20 importers of shark meat account for 90% of the global average annual imports over the last 12 years (2008–2019). Europe and South America are the largest retail markets for shark meat (Figure 8), although trade in Asia of highly processed meat, such as fish balls or surimi, may not be recorded as shark and domestic landings also supply local markets with meat. The top countries from which they import (i.e. top exporting countries) include Spain, Taiwan, Uruguay, USA, Argentina, Portugal, Japan, , and Indonesia. Figure 11

p. 13 illustrates the major trade flows (>1000 mt) of shark meat recorded over the last five years (2015–2019). Several countries are both major importers and exporters (e.g., Spain, Uruguay, Portugal, Peru). It appears that blue shark may now be dominating meat markets in Japan, Spain, Taiwan Province of China and Uruguay (Dent and Clarke, 2015), and Uruguay re- exports significant quantities to Brazil.

Table 7. Shark product HS codes used in trade, 2008–2019. HS Meat HS Code Fins* Code Dogfish & other sharks, fresh/chilled (excl. fillets/other fish meat of (*Fin specific codes available only from 30265 03.04/livers & roes) 2012) Fish; fresh or chilled, dogfish and other sharks, excluding fillets, Fish; fresh or chilled, 30281 30292 livers, roes, and other fish meat of heading 0304 shark fins Fish; fresh or chilled, rays and skates (Rajidae), excluding fillets, 30282 30392 Fish; frozen, shark fins livers, roes, and other fish meat of heading 0304 Dogfish & other sharks, frozen (excl. fillets/other fish meat of Fish; edible , shark 30375 30571 03.04/livers & roes) fins Fish; frozen, dogfish and other sharks, excluding fillets, livers, roes, 30381 Fish preparations; shark and other fish meat of heading 0304 fins, prepared or 160418 Fish; frozen, rays and skates (Rajidae), excluding fillets, livers, roes, preserved, whole or in 30382 and other fish meat of heading 0304 pieces (but not minced) 30447 Fish fillets; fresh or chilled, dogfish and other sharks 30448 Fish fillets; fresh or chilled, rays and skates (Rajidae) Fish meat; excluding fillets, whether or not minced; fresh or chilled, dogfish and other 30456 sharks Fish meat; excluding fillets, whether or not minced; fresh or chilled, rays and skates 30457 (Rajidae) 30488 Fish fillets; frozen, dogfish, other sharks, rays and skates (Rajidae) 30496 Fish meat, excluding fillets, whether or not minced; frozen, dogfish and other sharks 30497 Fish meat, excluding fillets, whether or not minced; frozen, rays and skates (Rajidae)

180,000 4.00

160,000 3.50

140,000 3.00 120,000 2.50 100,000 2.00 80,000 1.50 60,000

Quantity traded (mt) 1.00 40,000 (USD/kg) value Trade 20,000 0.50 0 0.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Shark meat imports (quantity (t) Shark meat exports (quantity (t) Shark meat imports - value (USD/kg) Shark meat exports - value (USD/kg)

Figure 7. Global shark meat trade, quantity (metric tonnes) and value (1000 USD), 2008– 2019. (Source: UN Comtrade.)

p. 14

Brazil Korea (Rep. of) Spain Uruguay Italy Portugal China France Other Asia, nes Peru Singapore Mexico Malaysia Viet Nam China, Hong Kong SAR United Kingdom Japan Belgium Thailand 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Average quantity of meat importers per year (metric tonnes, 2008-2019)

Figure 8. The top 20 importers of shark meat, 2008–2019. (Source: UN Comtrade.)

Fins: An average of 16 502 mt of shark fin products (with an average value of USD 323 million per year) were reported as imported during 2000–2018 (Figure 9; FAO, 2020). Quantities traded and reported value have fluctuated over this time period, with the overall trend showing a decline. The majority of reported imports were traded as ‘Shark fins, dried, whether or not salted’ (on average 50% of annual imports, 2000–2018), ‘Shark fins, salted and in brine but not dried or smoked’ (average 19%) and ‘Shark fins, prepared or preserved’ (average 19%).

30,000 500,000

450,000 25,000 400,000

350,000 20,000 300,000

15,000 250,000

200,000 10,000 150,000 Value (USD 1000) Value (USD Quantity Quantity (metrictonnes) 100,000 5,000 50,000

0 0

Shark fin imports - quantity Shark fin exports - quantity Import Shark fin exports - value

Figure 9. Global shark fin trade quantity (metric tonnes) and value (1000 USD) 2000– 2018. (Source: FAO 2020)

p. 15

It is important to note that the global shark fin trade data summarised in Figure 9 include some double-counting of imports and re-imported products, and that frozen raw and processed canned fins contain a substantial weight of water compared with dried raw and processed fins. The unit value of imported unprocessed frozen or dried shark fin is also much lower than that of re-exported processed fin.

The world’s four largest importers of shark fin accounted for almost 90% of average annual global imports of fins during 2000–2018 (Figure 10). Hong Kong, China SAR, is the largest, importing an average of 8 624 mt of shark fin a year over this period, followed by Malaysia (average 2 504 mt/year – although this is influenced by an unusually high volume of processed fin imported in 2013), China (1 862 mt/year) and Singapore (1 576 mt/year). Fins moving between Hong Kong SAR and mainland China do not appear in Comtrade statistics, although they are reported in Hong Kong’s external merchandise trade statistics. Hong Kong imported fins largely from Singapore, Taiwan, Spain, Peru, United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, although Hong Kong Customs records report trade with an average of 83 nations annually (Shea & To 2017). Singapore, which is a trade hub, not a fin producer, imported fins largely from Spain, Namibia, Uruguay, Taiwan and Indonesia (UN Comtrade).

Others (including Canada, Thailand, Indonesia) Taiwan Province of China Singapore China Malaysia China, Hong Kong SAR

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Average quantity imported (metric tonnes, 2000-2018)

Figure 10. Major shark fin importers and their average annual reported imports (metric tonnes), 2000–2019. (Source: FAO 2020)

p. 16

Figure 11. Major trade flows (>1000 metric tonnes over five years) of national shark meat imports recorded during 2015–2019. Source: UN Comtrade. This map only shows trade flows >1000 tonnes/5 years; numerous smaller trade routes are not illustrated. Legend units are in mt.

p. 17

Figure 12. Major trade flows (> 300 metric tonnes over five years) of national shark fin imports recorded during 2015–2019. Source: UN Comtrade. This map only shows trade flows >300 mt/5 years; numerous smaller trade routes are not illustrated. Legend units are in mt.

p. 18

Table 8. Taxa identified from the Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun fin markets, Hong Kong, ranked by frequency (Fields et al. 2017) Common name Species IUCN Red List* CITES CMS Body size Habitat Percentage of samples Prionace glauca Blue Shark NT II large oceanic 34.0% Carcharhinus falciformis Silky Shark VU II II large oceanic 10.1% Carcharhinus limbatus complex, , , incl: C. amblyrhynchoides, Smoothtooth & Australian blacktip NT/LC large coastal 4.1% C. leiodon, C. tilstoni sharks Sphyrna lewini CR II II large coastal 4.1% Sphyrna zygaena Smooth hammerhead EN II large coastal 3.4% Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako EN II II large oceanic 2.8% Carcharhinus spp. Requiem Sharks 35% threatened large various 2.4% Carcharhinus leucas NT large coastal 1.8% acutus Milk Shark LC small coastal 1.4% Carcharhinus brevipinna NT large coastal 1.2% Carcharhinus amboinensis Pigeye Shark DD large coastal 1.1% Dalatias licha NT large deep benthic 1.1% Carcharhinus sorrah -tail Shark NT large coastal 1.0% Carcharhinus longimanus Oceanic whitetip Shark CR II large oceanic 1.0% Carcharhinus obscurus/ Dusky/Galapagos Shark VU/NT II large coastal 0.9% C. galapagensis Sphyrna mokarran Great hammerhead CR II II large coastal 0.9% Alopias superciliosus Bigeye thresher Shark VU II II large oceanic 0.8% acutidens Sicklefin VU large coastal 0.6% spp. Plough-nose Chimaeras LC small deep 0.6% Rhynchobatus australiae complex White-spotted guitarfishes complex CR II II large coastal 0.5% Rhizoprionodon taylori Australian sharpnose Shark LC small coastal 0.5% Carcharhinus limbatus Blacktip Shark NT large coastal 0.4% spp. Bamboo Sharks NT small coastal 0.4% Alopias pelagicus Pelagic thresher Shark EN II II large oceanic 0.4% spp. (10 spp) Gulper Sharks 30% threatened, 70% DD small deep benthic 0.4% Galeorhinus Soupfin Shark VU large oceanic 0.4% Lamna ditropis Salmon Shark LC large oceanic 0.4% Mustelus spp. (27 spp) Smoothhound Sharks 15% threatened, 44% DD small coastal-shelf 0.4% The Red List assessments are from Fields et al. 2017; several have since been updated – see Table 1.

p. 19

As well as being among the world’s largest shark fin consumers, some of the major shark fin importers are important centres for processing dried and frozen fin imports, a proportion of which is subsequently re-exported in processed form all over the world. Figure 10 (UN Comtrade) presents the major trade flows of imports (including re-imports) of shark fin recorded by importing countries over the last five years (2015–2019). In order to highlight the largest importers and exporters, and for consistency of comparison with previous studies (Dent and Clarke, 2015), only trade flows exceeding 300 mt between 2015 and 2019 are shown.

Although trade statistics are not species-specific, genetic analyses have confirmed that 11 of the approximately 30 fin categories used by traders in Hong Kong auctions to refer to a species or species group, including some CITES-listed species (Clarke et al. 2006a, 2006b). These authors examined trader records from October 1999 to March 2001 and were able to estimate numbers of individual sharks supplying fins for the trade globally as well as the proportional contributions of 14 of the most commonly traded species. These taxa comprised about 46% of the auction volume for that period.

It is not possible to repeat this study, but Fields et al. (2018) and Cardeñosa et al. (2017, 2018 a & b) have developed new techniques that enable a much wider range of species to be identified from by-products of the fin processing industry (see Table 8). This will allow future trends to be monitored, although it will not identify imported fins that do not require trimming. Twelve species were found in more than 1% of samples, five of which are listed in CITES Appendix II. Four species contributed >50% of samples and CITES-listed species >20%. Furthermore, current genetic investigations using genomics are now able to identify such fine-scale population structure within a single species that samples may be identified to their ocean or stock of origin (e.g. Benavides et al. 2011; Clarke et al. 2015; Chapman et al. 2009; Galván-Tirado et al. 2013).

Catch and trade in CITES-listed species

Most CITES-listed shark species are targeted or retained primarily to trade their fins. A few species, including Whale shark Rhincodon typus (listed in CITES Appendix II and effective in 2003), Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus (2006) and Shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus (2019) are more highly valued and targeted for meat, with their fins often being a by-product (Annex 1). Many CITES Appendix II species are globally distributed pelagics, caught throughout all oceans as a target or bycatch of pelagic longline gear, and as a bycatch in purse-seine and gillnet gear targeting tuna, swordfish and other billfish. Due to their broad distribution, often migratory nature, and occurrence in fisheries managed by the tuna RFMOs, these species fall under the remit of the tuna RFMOs and some are subject to region-specific conservation and management measures (CMMs). The following analyses are based primarily on FAO data (some RFMOs have more detailed observer records, not reviewed by this study).

Thresher sharks, Alopias (CITES Appendix II, effective since 2017): Two of the three species (Bigeye thresher Alopias supercilosus and Common thresher A. vulpinus) have a circumglobal distribution, while Pelagic thresher A. pelagicus is an Indo-Pacific species. All are caught by longline fisheries throughout their range, with some also captured in gillnets, and their meat and fins are utilised. These species are frequently reported by genus, as ‘Thresher sharks nei’, which is applied to 77% of the thresher shark catches reported to FAO. It is therefore very difficult to determine the relative abundance of each species in regional catches. During the last ten years (2008–2017), the Pelagic thresher shark was only reported to species level in the Southeast Pacific, landed by Ecuador (representing 21% of global catches for the genus), although other range States also land this species. Bigeye thresher shark was reported primarily in the southeast Pacific Ocean, also landed by Ecuador, followed by Mexico in the Western Central Atlantic and Brazil in the Southwest Atlantic (FAO, 2018). Common thresher was reported from the Northeast Atlantic, landed by France; and in the Northwest Atlantic, Western Central Atlantic and Eastern Central Pacific, landed by United States. All three species are traded primarily for their fins and fetch high prices in

p. 20

market destinations such as Indonesia, Singapore and Japan (Dent and Clarke, 2015), although there are also markets for their relatively high value meat, which has driven some historic, primarily domestic, fisheries (e.g. on the US Pacific coast).

Hammerhead sharks, Genus Sphyrna (CITES Appendix II, effective since 2014): The three large species of hammerhead sharks (Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini, Great hammerhead S. mokarran and Smooth hammerhead S. zygaena) are also traded primarily for their fins and are amongst the preferred species for shark fin soup (Dent and Clarke, 2015). Scalloped and Great hammerhead sharks are found worldwide in coastal temperate and tropical waters. The Smooth hammerhead is found in similar coastal and open ocean temperate and tropical waters, but has a wider range extending into higher latitudes than the other large hammerhead species. All three are caught in both targeted fisheries (longline, gillnet, handline and trolling) and to a lesser extent as bycatch in purse seine fisheries. As for the thresher sharks, these species are frequently reported by genus, as ‘Hammerhead sharks nei’, which is applied to 94% of the catch reported to FAO. Unlike the threshers, this category includes some unlisted threatened species of smaller-bodied , likely in low volumes. According to catch statistics (FAO, 2019), Great hammerhead (which was first reported to FAO in 2013) is reported in the lowest numbers of the three listed species and caught predominantly by the United States in both the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic Oceans. Scalloped hammerhead is reported predominantly by Mauritania in the Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean; Brazil in the Southwest Atlantic; Ecuador in the Southeast Pacific and the USA in the Western Central Atlantic, although this species is an important catch in a much larger number of range States. The majority of Smooth hammerhead is reported from fisheries in the Eastern Central Atlantic, landed by Morocco, Spain and Portugal; and in the Southeast Pacific, landed by Ecuador.

Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis (CITES Appendix II effective since 2017): Silky shark has a circumglobal distribution. It is caught in some targeted fisheries and is a common incidental catch in coastal longline and gillnet fisheries, and in oceanic longline and purse seine fisheries. Over the last ten years, the majority of reported catches of Silky shark was reported landed in the Eastern Indian Ocean by Sri Lanka; also Costa Rica in the Eastern Central Pacific; and Iran in the Western Indian (FAO, 2019). The retention of Silky shark is now prohibited in many oceanic pelagic fisheries outside the Indian Ocean (IATTC 2016, ICCAT 2011, WCPFC 2013), although the large longline fisheries on the Latin American Pacific coast are exempted from the IATTC measure. Silky shark is still traded for both meat and fins, with the fins considered high value, and this is the second most commonly traded species in the fin trade (Fields et al. 2017; & Cardeñosa et al. 2017).

Oceanic whitetip Carcharhinus longimanus (CITES Appendix II effective since 2014): The Oceanic whitetip shark is found in epipelagic tropical and subtropical waters worldwide and caught as bycatch in longline and purse seine fisheries throughout its range, but has been greatly depleted in recent decades. Retention of Oceanic whitetip is now prohibited by all the tuna RFMOs (IATTC in 2011, ICCAT in 2010, IOTC in 2013 and WCPFC in 2011), with the collection of data on discards and live release mandated. Landings reported to the FAO showed an average of 458 mt landed per year (2008–2017; FAO 2019) although with the adoption of the tuna RFMO prohibitions and the CITES Appendix II listing during 2010-2014, this has decreased in recent years to 65 mt in 2016 and 62 mt in 2017. Prior to the tuna RFMO prohibitions and CITES listing, Brazil consistently reported landings from the southwest Atlantic. The majority of catch in more recent years was reported from the Eastern Indian Ocean, landed by Sri Lanka, and the Western Indian Ocean, landed by the Islamic Republic of Iran (FAO, 2019).

Mantas and Devilrays, Genus Mobula (CITES Appendix II effective since 2014–2017): A new emerging trade in Mobulid ray species was recognised in 2013 (IUCN/TRAFFIC, 2013; Dulvy et al. 2014). CITES Appendix II came into effect for the Mantas in 2014, and the other members of genus Mobula in 2017. Mobulids were traditionally utilised for their meat, but the largest species are

p. 21

now targeted specifically for their gill plates, which are marketed as a medicinal product in Asian communities (Ward-Paige et al. 2013). Mobulid rays are found worldwide in tropical and temperate waters and caught in targeted fisheries as well as an incidental catch in a variety of gear types, including harpooning, netting, , purse seine, gillnets and longlines. Some of the two Manta species (now reclassified as Mobula) and nine other species of Mobula rays are difficult to identify and distinguish without an identification guide, and are not recorded to species level in catch and trade data. The FAO currently compiles catch records for 30 ray species at species level, including the Giant Manta ray, and eight groupings of species that include rays – one of which is for the mobulid rays ‘Mantas, devil rays nei’ (FAO, 2019). Catches for this category have increased over the period 2008–2017, with an average catch of 4 462 mt per year. The majority of catches in recent years were from the Western Central Pacific, landed by Indonesia; and the Eastern Indian Ocean, landed by Indonesia and Sri Lanka. IATTC has prohibited the landing or retention of mobulids on board since 2015 (exempting coastal fisheries). IOTC and WCPFC adopted similar measures in 2019. Shortfin and Longfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus & Isurus paucus (CITES Appendix II effective since 2019): Mako sharks occur globally in temperate and tropical oceans and are highly migratory in nature. Shortfin mako is caught throughout all oceans by over 20 catchers. It is a common secondary catch in tuna and billfish longline and driftnet fisheries, particularly in high-seas fisheries, and also an important coastal recreational species. It is highly valued for its meat, also fins and , and was ranked as the 5th most common species in the fin trade in Hong Kong SAR (Table 8, Fields et al., 2017). Oil is extracted for vitamins, and jaws and teeth are also sold as ornaments and trophies. Current management measures implemented by RFMOs include a binding recommendation for the North Atlantic stock whereby live release (but with many exemptions) is required for ICCAT members (BYC 17-08; 2017), and GFCM prohibits the retention of Shortfin Mako (GFCM/36/2012/3). Longfin mako is reported by fewer catchers, mainly Portugal and Spain in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. It is a secondary catch in tropical pelagic longline fisheries for tuna, swordfish and sharks and in other oceanic fisheries, which operate throughout its range. The products utilised include fresh, frozen, and dried or salted meat for human consumption. Fins are of higher relative value compared to the carcass and are known to enter the international fin trade (Reardon et al., 2006). Both Shortfin and Longfin makos are assessed as Endangered globally in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Rigby et al., 2019a, b) and in 2019 were included in CITES Appendix II. Furthermore, although a proposal to ICCAT to implement scientific advice by prohibiting catch of North Atlantic Shortfin mako was unsuccessful, the EU recently issued a negative CITES Non-Detriment Finding (NDF), meaning that EU Member States will not trade sharks from this population (including existing stockpiles) from January 2021.

Wedgefishes Family Rhinidae (CITES Appendix II, effective since 2019): Recent awareness over the susceptibility of wedgefishes to over-exploitation has highlighted the need for their improved management and conservation (Dulvy et al., 2014; Moore, 2017). The family Rhinidae (commonly referred to as wedgefishes) consists of ten species. It is the second most threatened family of chondrichthyans globally with 90% of species classified as “Critically Endangered’” on the IUCN Red List. The Wedgefishes typically occur in inshore habitats on the continental shelf, including shallow bays, estuaries and coastal coral reefs, mainly in the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Compagno & Last 1999). They are caught by artisanal and commercial fisheries both as target species and as secondary catch in demersal trawl, net, and longline fisheries (Jabado, 2018). Wedgefish fins are considered amongst the best quality and highest value in the shark fin trade (Dent and Clarke, 2015) and are increasingly being found fetching high prices on markets in Hong Kong SAR and Singapore (Wainwright et al., 2018; Fields et al., 2017). As they are primarily coastal species, international management through RFMO regulations is limited, but in 2019 trade was regulated through the inclusion of all ten species within CITES Appendix II.

p. 22

Giant guitarfishes Family Glaucostegidae (CITES Appendix II, effective since 2019): The family contains six species of giant guitarfishes in genus Glaucostegus, all classified as Critically Endangered and threatened by unmanaged and unregulated fisheries and trade (Kyne et al., 2019a). This is the world’s most threatened family of chondrichthyans. At least two species, Glaucostegus cemiculus and G. granulatus, are known to be targeted in West Africa, Northwest Indian Ocean, and South Asia (Jabado, 2018). They occur mainly in shallow coastal waters and are caught in many gear types, including trawls, gillnets, seine nets, and hook and line (Kyne et al., 2019b). Similar to wedgefishes, they are largely traded for their high value fins and occur in markets in Hong Kong SAR (Fields et al., 2017). To regulate trade, the six species of guitarfish were included within CITES Appendix II in 2019.

Risk of Overexploitation

In 2014, in order to facilitate efforts to improve management of shark catches, a rapid risk management framework suitable for marine taxa was developed and applied to species of shark with medium to high intrinsic vulnerability (Oldfield et al. 2012; Sant et al. 2012; Lack et al. 2014). The assessment combined information on three elements for each shark species – stock status, species-specific management and generic management – in order to determine an overall score representing the shark species’ or stock/s’ overall risk of overexploitation due to poor management (Lack et al. 2014). This process can be used to prioritise shark species of greatest concern, and identify where improvement or implementation of new management measures is most needed. Preliminary analyses covered 173 shark management units (or shark stocks) for 46 species (see Annex 1 for the species assessed). Of those, 150 were assessed as having a high management risk and 23 as having a medium management risk (Lack et al. 2014). The overall risk rating for each of the CITES-listed and other significant species is listed in Annex 1 by management unit or stock. The assessment allows for the identification of additional management intervention for priority species and is a valuable tool for monitoring the effectiveness of management measures in the future.

p. 23

6 Management status

Management action for sharks listed in the CITES Appendices can be taken at international, regional, or national level. Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev.CoP18) on the conservation and management of sharks recognises the duty of all States to cooperate, either directly or through appropriate sub-regional or regional organisations in the conservation and management of fisheries resources, and instructs the CITES Secretariat to maintain close collaboration with FAO, Regional Fisheries Bodies and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species. This section focuses upon the international and regional advice, recommendations and resolutions produced by multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); the role of Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs); and key national measures.

International management

6.1.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) UNCLOS Article 64 urges coastal States and other fishing States to cooperate to ensure the conservation and optimum utilisation of Annex I species, directly or through appropriate international organizations, within and beyond the exclusive economic zone. Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, lists most of the CITES Appendix II-listed pelagic sharks, with the majority listed at family level (threshers, carcharhinids, hammerheads and makos). This multilateral cooperation is currently being delivered through several UN bodies concerned with fisheries management and biodiversity conservation.

6.1.2 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) In 1999, FAO adopted the voluntary International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), one of several IPOAs elaborated within the framework of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. It applies to States in the waters of which sharks are caught by their own or by foreign vessels and to countries whose fleets catch sharks on the high seas. The IPOA-Sharks urges States to develop National Shark Plans. It also envisages cooperation through regional or sub-regional fisheries organizations and the development of regional or sub- regional Shark Plans.

The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures (PSMA) to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing, adopted in 2009, came into force in 2016. By obligating its Parties to manage ports under their jurisdiction, with the goals of detecting illegal fishing, intercepting illegally caught fish, and sharing information on vessels engaging in IUU fishing, the PSMA mandates States to ensure compliance with RFMO regulations and other taxon-specific management measures (including CITES).

6.1.3 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) UNEP administers the Secretariats for CITES and CMS, the two major multilateral environmental agreements addressing the management of sharks, and the Regional Seas Programme (see below).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was established to protect species from over-exploitation through international trade. It recognizes the need for international cooperation between range States and consumer States to achieve this. Appendix I species cannot enter international trade for commercial purposes, although non- commercial transactions are permitted. Appendix II applies to species that may become threatened unless their trade is strictly regulated, to ensure that trade is legal, sustainable and traceable. Appendix III species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling trade. (Appendix III listings were not reviewed in this study.)

CITES Authorities must issue an export permit before specimens (including parts and products) of species listed in CITES Appendices may enter international trade. This requires the responsible Authorities to be satisfied that they derive from individuals that have been legally acquired and that their removal from the wild is not of detriment to the survival of the respective population of the

p. 24

species concerned. That is: the export needs a ‘Legal Acquisition Finding’ (LAF) from the Management Authority, and a “Non-Detriment Finding” (NDF), from the Scientific Authority. These procedures ensure that the traded specimens were captured legally and sustainably, and enable exports, imports and re-exports to be tracked. CITES provisions also apply to listed species caught on the high seas, retained and landed, which applies to several pelagic sharks and rays. In such cases, the flag State of the fishing vessel must issue an “Introduction from the Sea” (IFS) Certificate or Export Permit, depending on whether they are landing the species in their own port or the port of another State. While issuing this documentation is a sovereign State responsibility, CITES recognizes that Regional Fishery Bodies can have a role in advising Parties on the sustainability of fisheries for Appendix II species and building capacity. For example, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) has been running training courses for some of its members to assist them with the preparation of their NDFs.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) currently lists 40 species of coastal and pelagic sharks and rays in its Appendices (unlike CITES, a species can be listed in both). These include all of the pelagic sharks and mobulid ray species listed in the CITES Appendices (see Table 9). All species listings in the CMS Appendices should be supported by a Concerted Actions list, including a specification of the conservation and institutional outcomes expected from each action and timeframes for achievement, but these still need to be developed for many shark species.

CMS Appendix II includes migratory species with an unfavourable conservation status, whose conservation requires collaboration between Parties. Appendix I lists endangered species which require strict protection (defined as prohibiting their take7). Thus, CMS provides a framework within which Parties to CMS may adopt strict protection measures for migratory species listed in Appendix I (although few had done so by 20198). CMS Parties that have fully implemented this measure are unlikely to be able to issue CITES LAFs for protected species listed in CMS Appendix I.

The voluntary CMS Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (Sharks MoU) is open to signature by Parties and non-Parties to CMS, and to cooperating partner non-governmental bodies. It aims to facilitate and coordinate conservation activities for the species included in its Annex 1, most of which are listed in the CMS Appendices. The MoU Conservation Action Plan seeks to improve research, fisheries management, habitat protection, public awareness, and cooperation at national and international scales. Signatories are encouraged to pursue these activities through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The MOU Conservation Working Group is tasked, inter alia, with reviewing the work of FAO, RSCAPs, RFMOs, and RFBs and other relevant organisations involved in species in Annex 1 and identifying research, management and information gaps that may be addressed by the MoU, including key regions and capacity-building needs in areas not covered by RFMOs.

7 Defined as “taking, hunting, fishing, capturing, harassing, deliberate killing, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.” 8 Lawson and Fordham (2019) examined the legislation of 83 CMS Parties that are a range State for at least one Appendix I species. 23 Parties (28%), including 13 EU Member States, had strict protection for all CMS Appendix I shark and ray species. An additional 28 Parties had protected some Appendix I species or had partially effective measures in place for all species in their waters.

p. 25

Table 9. International and regional protected status and management measures for CITES Appendix II-listed pelagic sharks and rays.

UNCLOS CMS CMS CMS Species RFMO RSCAP Annex I I II MOU

Barcelona SPA/BD Basking shark     GFCM, NEAFC Protocol, Annex 2. Cetorhinus maximus OSPAR List 2008-6. Whale shark     IATTC, IOTC WCPFC Rhincodon typus White shark Barcelona SPA/BD - -   GFCM Carcharodon carcharias Protocol, Annex 2. Barcelona SPA/BD Porbeagle shark - -   GFCM, ICCAT NEAFC Protocol, Annex 2. Lamna nasus OSPAR List 2008-6. Oceanic whitetip shark IATTC, ICCAT IOTC,   -  Carcharhinus longimanus WCPFC Scalloped Hammerhead Barcelona SPA/BD  -   GFCM, ICCAT IOTC Sphyrna lewini Protocol, Annex 2. Great hammerhead Barcelona SPA/BD  -   GFCM, ICCAT IOTC Sphyrna mokarran Protocol, Annex 2. Smooth hammerhead Barcelona SPA/BD  -   GFCM, ICCAT IOTC Sphyrna zygaena Protocol, Annex 2. Pelagic thresher shark  -   IOTC Alopias pelagicus Bigeye thresher shark  -   ICCAT, IOTC Alopias superciliosus Common thresher shark Barcelona SPA/BD  -   ICCAT, IOTC Alopias vulpinus Protocol, Annex 3. Silky shark  -   IATTC, ICCAT WCPFC Carcharhinus falciformis Shortfin mako shark Barcelona SPA/BD  -   GFCM, ICCAT Isurus oxyrinchus Protocol, Annex 2. Longfin mako shark  -   Isurus paucus Reef manta ray -    IATTC, IOTC WCPFC Manta (Mobula) alfredi Oceanic manta ray -    IATTC, IOTC WCPFC Manta (Mobula) birostris Atlantic devil ray -    Mobula hypostoma Shortfin devil ray -    IOTC, WCPFC Mobula kuhlii Giant devil ray Barcelona SPA/BD -    GFCM, IOTC WCPFC Mobula mobular Protocol, Annex 2. Smoothtail/Munk's devil ray -    Mobula munkiana Chilean/Sicklefin devil ray -    IATTC, IOTC WCPFC Mobula tarapacana Bentfin devil ray -    IOTC, WCPFC Mobula thurstoni

p. 26

Regional Management

6.2.1 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme (UNRSP) In addition to administering the Secretariats for CITES and CMS, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) coordinates the United Nations Regional Seas Programme (UNRSP). Launched in 1974 to enable a “shared seas” approach to conserving coastal and marine resources, the UNRSP is implemented through 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs), with 143 participating countries. RSCAPs provide the legal framework for protecting the oceans and seas at regional level, supported through the RSP Secretariats, Regional Coordinating Units (RCUs) or Regional Activity Centres (RACs). They also serve as a platform to deliver regional conservation activities and outcomes, including those mandated through CITES and CMS, and to progress sustainable development commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Extraction of living and non-living resources is one of four overarching themes for the work of the UNRSP, and a core goal is to work in collaboration with RFMOs (UNEP 2015). Even RSCAPs without an explicit fisheries remit consider its impacts when addressing environmental matters, such as marine and coastal resource management, pollution and biodiversity concerns, recognising fisheries as the most ubiquitous extractive activity affecting the world’s oceans and the most important global threat to marine species. However, some RSCAPs have an advisory remit for fisheries and act as Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs) (see next section). The Antarctic Regional Seas Programme, for example, operates under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) is the coordinating body for the regional seas programme and serves as an RFB.

Annex 4 identifies the RSCAPs that are engaged in the conservation and management of sharks, for example by listing species of concern in their Annexes and/or implementing work programmes for sharks and rays (e.g. Mediterranean, Wider Caribbean, North East Atlantic, Western Indian Ocean) or providing shark fisheries advice and capacity-building (e.g. Red Sea and Gulf of Aden).

The first UNRSP initiative for sharks was elaboration and adoption, in 2003, of an Action Plan for the Conservation of Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyes) in the Mediterranean Sea. This was led by the UNEP Mediterranean Sea Regional Activity Centre, operating under the auspices of the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. Since its publication, the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention have agreed to list a number of endangered chondrichthyans on the Annexes of the Barcelona Convention Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean.

Other important examples of RSPs addressing shark and ray conservation include the collaboration between the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (an RFB), and Forum Fisheries Agency (an RFB) to produce and publish, in 2009, guidance for a South Pacific RPOA for Sharks to assist the Pacific Island Countries and Territories in developing conservation and management efforts for chondrichthyans in that region. That work is moving forward, including through a growing number of NPOAs, with the support of a dedicated Shark and Ray Conservation Officer at SPREP.

More recently, the RSP for Eastern Africa, under the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management, and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region, has, since 2012, included sharks and rays in the Convention’s programme of work and has been supporting the development of a regional roadmap to prioritize conservation efforts for sharks and rays, as well as to review shark and ray species for possible listing on the Nairobi Convention Protocol for Protected Areas and Wild Fauna and Flora in the East African Region.

In the Caribbean, the Contracting Parties to the Cartagena Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region have recently agreed

p. 27

to list the CITES Appendix I species, the largetooth sawfish, on the Convention’s Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife, thus providing additional impetus to efforts to recover this Critically Endangered species.

6.2.2 Regional Fishery Bodies Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) are the primary mechanism for cooperative decision-making and implementation of fisheries management by their Contracting and/or Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs). Their role is vital for promoting long-term sustainable fisheries at regional and national levels, particularly where international cooperation among countries is required for species conservation and fisheries management of shared stocks. Over 50 RFBs have been established to support the management of marine and freshwater fisheries. Most have a purely advisory mandate; they provide non-binding scientific advice and serve as a forum for capacity-building, technical exchange, development and implementation of coordinated actions and approaches, among many activities. Other RFBs, the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), are mandated to adopt conservation and management measures (CMMs) that are binding on their members, in addition to non-binding decisions. RFBs have the potential to play an important role in supporting the implementation of CITES for listed marine species, as recognised in operative paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 10 of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP18), all directed to Parties (Annex 7).

Originally, RFBs were established to deliver the conservation, management and/or development solely of the fisheries for which they are responsible. Some of the more recently established RFBs have a broader mandate that includes all living marine resources in their geographic area of competence. With the adoption of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and development of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, RFBs – and RFMOs – are broadening focus to include the ecosystem effects of fishing, e.g., on vulnerable habitats that may be damaged by certain fishing gears and , such as marine turtles, seabirds, and sharks, that interact with – and suffer mortality in – fishing operations targeting other species.

RFMOs play the main role in facilitating international fisheries management, providing the only realistic means of governing fishing operations on the high seas, and conserving populations that move between the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) or territorial waters of neighbouring States, and/or between EEZs and the high seas. There has been wide recognition in recent years that RFMOs need to be strengthened9, particularly by improving their governance and compliance mechanisms, and implementing the principles of ecosystem-based management and the precautionary approach. Some are now also working to strengthen international cooperation, promote transparency, address fishing by non-members, and enhance monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) measures, including the implementation of mandatory vessel monitoring systems (VMS), the adoption of regional schemes for Port State Measures and the development of IUU vessel lists.

Since adoption of the FAO IPOA-Sharks in 1999, a number of Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) have undertaken a range of efforts to advance the conservation and management of sharks, including, in recent years, to support CITES implementation for these species. Annex 3 lists the 32 RFBs of greatest relevance to the implementation of CITES for sharks and indicates whether they have taken or are taking actions on behalf of these species. Of the 14 RFMOs on the list, eight have adopted one or more Conservation and Management Measures (CMM) for CITES-listed sharks and rays, while a total of ten have adopted CMMs for sharks. Table 10 summarises the CMMs that have been adopted for CITES-listed sharks and rays by these RFMOs, but does not provide details of the exemptions (loopholes) that limit the effectiveness of many of these measures.

9 http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14908/en: Strengthening RFBs and their performances in order that fish stocks may be better conserved and managed remains the major challenge facing international fisheries governance. This is reinforced by the overall state of exploitation of marine fishery resources where the situation is more serious for certain fishery resources that are exploited solely or partially in the high seas and, in particular, for straddling stocks and for highly migratory oceanic sharks.

p. 28

Table 10. RFMO management status of sharks and rays listed in the CITES Appendices

CCAMLR CCBST GFCM IATTC ICCAT IOTC NEAFC WCPFC

Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Prohib. Prohib. Thresher Shark Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Thresher Alopias vulpinus Common Prohib. Prohib. Thresher Carcharhinus falciformis Silky Prohib. *Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Shark Carcharhinus longimanus Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Oceanic whitetip Carcharodon carcharias White Prohib. Shark Cetorhinus maximus Basking Prohib. Prohib. Shark Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin Mako *Live Prohib. Shark release Isurus paucus Longfin Mako Lamna nasus Porbeagle Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Rhincodon typus Whale Shark Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Sphyrna lewini Scalloped Live Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. hammerhead release Sphyrna mokarran Great Live Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. hammerhead release Sphyrna zygaena Smooth Live Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. hammerhead release Genus Mobula Devil Rays (incl Prohib. (M Prohib. *Prohib. Prohib. Prohib. Mantas) mobular) Family Pristidae Sawfishes Prohib. Family Glaucostegidae Giant guitarfishes, six spp Family Rhinidae Wedgefishes, Prohib. ten spp (two spp) Generic: Finning prohibited Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Generic: Live release CM 32-18 Yes Yes ERS Generic: Bycatch mitigation/limits Yes Yes Yes mitigation Generic: Target fishing prohibited CM 32-18 Some spp. Generic: Nursery grounds Yes Generic: Apply other tRFMO 10 CMM

measures alignment CM/CMM: Conservation [and Management] Measure. Prohib: prohibited. * exemptions apply. ERS: ecologically-related species.

10 The CCSBT has an agreed binding Resolution to Align CCSBT’s Ecologically Related Species measures with those of other tuna RFMOs. It is annually updated according to relevant adopted ‘ERS Measures’ which refers to measures relating to ecologically related species in force in the IOTC, WCPFC and ICCAT. It applies to all registered vessels of the Members and Cooperating Non-Members authorised to fish for Southern Bluefin Tuna.

p. 29

The management of pelagic sharks listed in CITES Appendix II is being addressed in some respects by the five major tuna RFMOs (tRFMOs), which manage pelagic fisheries in 91% of the world’s oceans and have the authority (albeit unclear for IOTC and IATTC), if not the explicit responsibility, to manage bycatch of the Ecologically-Related Species (ERS) associated with these fisheries. The most common measures adopted by tRFMOs specific to sharks are a prohibition on finning (the removal of a shark’s fins and discarding the carcass at sea), and prohibitions on retention, landing, etc. of a limited number of species. In addition to these CMMs, these RFMOs have established reporting requirements for the catch of some shark and ray species, and in some cases the resulting data is supporting stock assessments and/or ecological risk assessments for these species.

While not specifically considered in this document, many RFBs/RFMOs have adopted non-species specific time/area closures and recommended and mandated gear restrictions. For example, SIOFA, SPRFMO, IOTC, SEAFO, CCAMLR and NEAFC have restricted the use of deep water bottom set gill nets. While these measures would prevent the catch of a broad range of taxa, they would certainly be restricting the catch of shark species and in a number of cases these gear restrictions were put in place to prevent the targeting of deep-water shark species which are particularly susceptible to overexploitation. Similarly, the management plans for Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) introduced by tRFMOs should reduce the mortality of species such as silky sharks caught in association with tuna purse seine fisheries that use these devices in their operations.

While these efforts represent a degree of progress in addressing overfishing of sharks, it is important to note that it is very difficult to measure what contribution this is making to reducing overfishing for these species or recovering overfished shark species, not least because prohibitions may also reduce data collection opportunities. Lack et al. (2014), while assigning scores to assess the risk of overexploitation of sharks, have considered the direct contribution that different management measures make and provided guidance on how to measure this; this is therefore, a worthwhile resource to consider when looking for management measures to adopt for sharks.

While some RFMOs have made efforts to advise their Members on CITES responsibilities as a result of their catch of listed species (Clarke and IOTC Secretariat 2014, Clarke et al. 2014), there is great scope for an expansion of RFMO efforts to improve the management of CITES-listed sharks that are taken in fisheries under their remit. Most still need to be instructed by their Members to: • undertake work that would support their Members who are CITES Parties in conducting Non- Detriment Findings (NDFs) for species they catch and land/trade, particularly for shared stocks they catch under the remit of the RFB (see operative paragraph 5, Annex 7); • adopt management measures if necessary, such as precautionary catch or bycatch limits, for shark species (regardless of their CITES status) to ensure their catch is sustainable; • adopt traceability systems for their products to ensure their trade is legal; and • adopt comprehensive management plans to reduce overfishing of these species, or recovery plans for overfished species such as the oceanic whitetip shark.

A recent Joint Tuna RFMO By-catch Working Group meeting (Anon 2019) was the first to promote discussions on the assessment and management of elasmobranchs from a global perspective within the tRFMOs. It developed a list of recommended key areas for future action, covering management, scientific and technical matters, and data. The management recommendations include: “Improve communication and cooperation between CITES and tRMFOs to provide guidance and advice for the CITES listed species caught within the jurisdiction of each tRFMO.”

p. 30

The activities of the advisory RFBs, which contribute to the efforts of RFMOs in key areas such as monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), information exchange, and scientific advice, may also lead to improved national fisheries governance and harmonized regional measures11.

In all cases, the RFB Members that are CITES Parties first need to request that the RFBs take action in the above areas.

6.2.3 Regional Shark Plans (RPOA) and other regional collaborations related to the FAO IPOA– Sharks To date, eight Regional Plans of Action (RPOAs) or Guidance for NPOAs and RPOAs have been adopted (Table 12), with several other regional collaborations and RPOA-like processes for sharks and rays initiated. These efforts demonstrate the potential of these existing regional institutions to strengthen collaborations to enhance CITES implementation for sharks and rays.

The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches-CSRP), was the first RFB to undertake action planning under the IPOA-Sharks for its seven West African Members. The CSRP adopted an RPOA–Sharks in 2001 and, importantly, collaborated with several NGOs, including IUCN and WWF, to secure funds for implementation. The programme achieved numerous advances for shark and ray conservation at national and regional level, including coordinated development of NPOAs and revisions of national fisheries and trade legislation (Diop and Dossa, 2011). Although dedicated funding to support the RPOA has not been consistent since its adoption, the CSRP has continued its support, as resources have allowed, through their designated RPOA Coordinator, and the SCRP countries have maintained their national Shark Plan focal points. That infrastructure has enabled the CSRP to play a leadership role in the region in support of capacity-building for CITES implementation for sharks and rays, and specific conservation and management efforts. A follow-on project to support implementation of the RPOA-Sharks was designed (but not implemented) under the EU-funded ACP Fish II programme in 2010. It focused primarily on conversion of actors in shark supply chains and improvement in harmonization of regulations for shark fisheries across the CSRP countries, including to support CITES implementation. The estimated budget was €3.4 million.

The Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo (CTMFM) / Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina-Uruguay Common Fisheries Zone (Zone Común de Pesca-ZCP) published an RPOA-Sharks in 2018. This is the only RPOA thus far produced by an RFMO. The CTMFM incorporated chondrichthyans into their work programme in 2000 and adopted their first chondrichthyan catch limits in 2002. A Chondrichthyans Working Group (Grupo de Trabajo Condrictios-GTC) was established in 2003 to, inter alia, formulate scientific advice necessary to establish conservation and management measures for chondrichthyans, evaluate their effectiveness, and make recommendations for harmonization of management and conservation measures for species whose distributions extend beyond the Common Fisheries Zone. The numerous binding conservation and management measures adopted under this RFMO include time- area closures to protect important reproductive areas for chondrichthyans, Total Annual Catch limits (TACs) for certain species; a prohibition on finning, and requirement to return to the sea all live sharks >160cm long; and landing limits for chondrichthyans by fishing set. The GTC has also formulated a cooperative research plan for chondrichthyans in the Common Fisheries Zone and conducted a range of scientific assessments, including Productivity and Sustainability Analyses, Vulnerability Estimates, Indices of abundance; and the first-ever population estimates for sharks and rays in the Southwest Atlantic.

Although the CTMFM RPOA refers to CITES and CITES Non-Detriment Findings, the major commercial species under their remit do not currently include CITES-listed species. Nevertheless,

11 http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14908/en.

p. 31

their efforts serve as examples of what other RFMOs and RFBs could incorporate into their programmes of work to address conservation and management needs of chondrichthyan species.

Also, in the , the Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur-CPPS (RFB) adopted an RPOA (PAR Tiburón) in 2010 as a basis for coordinating its Member countries’ efforts at a regional level and with RFMOs for shared stocks. One of the expressed purposes of the RPOA and its implementing framework is to enable CPPS to recommend conservation and management measures for chondrichthyans that can be adopted nationally or through other regional bodies. A CPPS Comité Técnico Científico (CTC) PAR Tiburón, comprising representatives from each Member country, assists in coordinating the RPOA. Along similar lines, the Organización del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola del Istmo Centroamericano (OSPESCA)’s Central American RPOA is implemented with the assistance of a regional Shark Working Group comprising members from each of the participating countries.

Table 11. Regional Plans of Action (RPOA) or Guidance under the FAO IPOA–Sharks Organisation Date Title Membership Reference BOBLME: Bay of Recommendations for Shark Bangladesh, India, Bengal Large Marine NPOAs and RPOA from the Assessment Indonesia, Maldives, 2011 BOBLME 2011 Ecosystem Project / BOBLME Sharks Working Report & Malaysia, Myanmar, Sri Bay of Bengal IGO Group Guidance Lanka, Thailand (BOBLME) Plan de Acción Regional CPPS: Comisión para la Conservación de Permanente del Regional , , Ecuador, 2010 tiburones, rayas y quimeras CPPS 2010 Pacífico Sur (South Shark Plan Peru en el Pacífico Sudeste Pacific Commission) (PAR-CCPS). Plan Sous-Régional Cape Verde, Guinea, CSRP: Commission SRFC/CSRP d'Action Pour la Regional Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, Sous-Régionale des 2001 2001, Diop & Conservation et la Gestion Shark Plan Mauritania, , Sierra Pêches (West Africa) Dossa 2011 des Raies et Requins. Leone Plan de Acción Regional CTMFM: Comisión para la conservación y Técnica Mixta del pesca sustentable de los Regional 2018 Argentina, Uruguay CTMFM 2018 Frente Marítimo/Joint condrictios de la area del Sha rk Plan Fisheries Zone Tratado del Río de la Plata y su Frente Marítimo. Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Regional European Union 2009 28 EU Member States CPOA 2009 Management of Sharks Shark Plan (CPOA) Barcelona Action Plan for the UNEP Convention: UNEP Conservation of Regional 21 Mediterranean States UNEP MAP Mediterranean 2003 Cartilaginous Fishes Seas Shark and the European Union RAC/SPA. 2003 Regional Seas (Chondrichthyes) in the Plan Programme Mediterranean Sea. Plan de Acción Regional Belize, Costa Rica, Regional para la Ordenación y Dominican Republic, El OSPESCA (Central Shark Plan / OSPESCA 2011 Conservación de los Salvador, , America) PAR- 2011 Tiburones en , , TIBURON Centroamérica Guidance/ 21 Members of the South Pacific Island UNEP Secretariat of the Pacific Pacific Islands Regional Lack & Meere Countries and 2009 Regional Community and Western Action Plan for Sharks. 2009. Territories (PICTs) Seas Shark Central Pacific Fisheries Plan Commission

p. 32

The European Union’s Community Shark Plan (CPOA-Sharks), adopted in 2011, integrates a national, regional and global approach to the conservation and management of sharks, because it applies to the vessels and fleets of all of its (currently 28) Member States, wherever they may be fishing. The CPOA has the following three objectives:

1. To broaden the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem: a) To have reliable and detailed species-specific quantitative and biological data on catches and landings as well as trade data for high and medium priority fisheries; b) To be able to efficiently monitor and assess shark stocks on a species-specific level and develop harvesting strategies in accordance with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use; c) To improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving stakeholders in research, management and educational activities.

2. To ensure that directed fisheries for shark are sustainable and that bycatch of shark resulting from other fisheries are properly regulated: a) To adjust catches and fishing effort to the available resources with particular attention to high priority fisheries and vulnerable or threatened shark stocks; b) To minimize waste and discards from shark catches requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed and strengthening control measures.

3. To encourage a coherent approach between internal and external Community policy for sharks.

The EU CPOA is being implemented through the EU Revised Common Fisheries Policy Regulation, adopted in 2014, and its associated fisheries management policies and regulations. These policies and regulations apply to EU fisheries in EU waters and to EU fishing vessels outside of EU waters, including in the waters of third countries and on the High Seas, and waters that form the Area of Competence of RFMOs. The EU CPOA is not only regional but, in view of the Distant Water Fleets of many EU countries (e.g., France, Portugal, Spain) that are among the world’s top shark catchers, it is also has global reach – and impact.

The EU has adopted a wide array of conservation and management measures for sharks and rays, including gear restrictions and specifications, closed areas and seasons, TACs, minimum observer requirements, and strict recording, reporting, and data management rules. In reviewing the effectiveness of management measures and adapting those, the EU relies heavily on the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), an RFB whose remit is to provide scientific advice to Northeast Atlantic littoral States and RFMOs for this region, including for the adoption of science-based quotas and prohibited species status for heavily depleted shark stocks.

As with the South Pacific collaboration between SPREP, SPC, and FFA (see section 6.2.1), efforts have been initiated in the Wider Caribbean to bring together several RFBs to collaborate on sharks and rays. These began with the establishment, in 2012, of a Shark Working Group (SWG) under the West Central Atlantic Fishery Commission-WECAFC (RFB). The SWG then became part of a larger Joint Working Group on Shark Conservation and Management (JWGSCM), composed of representatives of WECAFC, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism-CRFM (RFB), OSPESCA (RFB), the US Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), and Member countries in the region. An agenda items for the JWGSCM’s first meeting in 2017 was to develop an RPOA for the 15 countries in the region. While an RPOA has not yet been finalized, the Terms of Reference, adopted and revised by WECAFC, provide for the Shark Working Group to: (a) facilitate sharing of available data and information on shark and ray stocks within the Wider Caribbean Region; (b) provide support to develop NPOAs for Member States and the RPOA; (c) provide technical inputs to support implementation of actions defined in the RPOA; (d) develop and implement a biennial work plan that will be monitored and evaluated; and (e) establish communication between the members of the working group, and between the working group and interested parties, including the private sector.

In Asia, which harbours several global hotspots of shark species biodiversity and extensive and intensive fisheries, and incorporates nine of the top 20 shark-fishing countries (and China), two RFBs

p. 33

have been particularly active in the past decade in support of the IPOA-Sharks: the Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO) and the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC). The four Members of BOBP-IGO (Bangladesh, India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka), initiated an RPOA-Sharks effort in 2008. This was taken forward under the auspices of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project (BOBLME) project, which incorporated a sharks component that included development of an RPOA Sharks and also involved non-BOBP-IGO member countries, i.e., Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand. The BOBLME project was implemented during 2009-2014 with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors. A BOBLME Sharks Working Group established following a workshop in 2011 supported the development of NPOAs in several national BOBLME projects, including Bangladesh, Maldives, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. This collaboration was therefore able to support shark work in a larger number of countries and directly link up with the shark and ray work undertaken by SEAFDEC in the Southeast Asia region. SEAFDEC has provided technical advice, training, and guidance over the years on shark and ray monitoring, identification, and other aspects of shark and ray fisheries management. Most recently, it has supported pilot shark and ray fisheries monitoring projects in several countries to train monitors, collect data, and develop knowledge on their fisheries and the species exploited in them. SEAFDEC has also provided technical and other assistance to the development of NPOAs-Sharks in the region, for example in Myanmar and Malaysia, and (as already noted) the preparation of CITES NDFs.

Following the 2013 CITES CoP16 listings of heavily traded, commercially valuable shark and ray species, the CITES Secretariat and FAO convened three regional workshops in 2014 to review CITES implementation issues and formulate recommendations and priorities for improving the capacities of CITES Management Authorities and their fisheries counterparts to fulfil their CITES obligations for these species. These workshops were held in West Africa (Casablanca Declaration, Anon. 2014a), Asia (Xiamen Declaration, Anon. 2014b) and Africa (Dakar Declaration, Anon. 2014c). Representatives from Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) participated in all these workshops, in recognition of the RFBs’ essential role in coordinating conservation and management efforts for these commercially exploited marine resources. While there was some variability in outcomes, there was much congruence between the issues identified and recommendations formulated. In recognition of the migratory and straddling stocks nature of CITES-listed species, and the commonality in implementation challenges across countries and regions, these workshops formulated many recommendations for regional collaboration. Others related to national capacities and collaborations for CITES implementation and shark and ray conservation and management.

National management

6.3.1 Implementation of the FAO IPOA-Sharks – Progress on NPOAs In 2012, FAO published an assessment of the state of implementation of the 1999 FAO IPOA-Sharks (Fischer et al. 2012), focused on the countries, areas, or territories that individually reported over 1% of global shark catches (see section 5.1 above). Of the 26 such entities (termed ‘shark catchers’ in this study) that accounted for 84% of the average reported global chondrichthyan catch over the 2000-2009 period, 14 had completed NPOAs; three more (Brazil, India, Peru) had reported drafts or NPOAs in progress; one country (Iran) had reported an NPOA for which no document was provided; and an additional three countries (France, Portugal, Spain) were operating under the European Union CPOA (which is both national and regional in nature). Almost a decade later, although their relative ranking had changed slightly since 2012, the top 40 shark catching entities were the same (see Table 12). As regards IPOA-Sharks implementation, significant progress has been made. Of the largest shark catchers, three more (India, Peru, Sri Lanka) have now completed and adopted either an NPOA or, in the case of India, a Shark Assessment Report with Guidance for an NPOA, as provided for under the IPOA-Sharks. A fourth country (Pakistan) has elaborated a draft NPOA that is currently under review. Importantly, several countries (e.g. Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uruguay) have revised and updated their NPOAs. Australia has moved to permanently having an NPOA which is updated on an annual basis

p. 34

against the ten objectives for an NPOA as described in the IPOA. It also has an implementation plan. Thailand’s 2005 NPOA was revised in 2017 and this revision is awaiting government approval, but neither document is linked from the FAO Database of Measures.

Brazil’s 2014 National Action Plan for the Conservation of Endangered Sharks and Marine Rays, published by ICMBio (Ministry of Environment) does not cover commercially-fished species, which fall under different regulations. The broken link from the FAO Database of Measures to a 2011 Proposed Management Plan for Sustainable Use of Elasmobranchs that are Over-exploited or Threatened with Over-Exploitation, published by IBAMA (the Environment Ministry Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) refers to an earlier draft.

Only two countries remain from FAO’s 2012 list of 26 top shark-fishing entities for which there is no readily available evidence of the existence of an NPOA-Sharks or NPOA process: Nigeria and Yemen. Of the additional three countries that now report >1% of world catches, only Ecuador has adopted an NPOA (and also participates in a Regional PoA under the Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur-CPPS). Oman has prepared a draft NPOA (2017) but there is no link to this from the FAO database of measures. No NPOA process appears to be underway in Tanzania.

Extending beyond the 26 major shark-fishing countries identified by FAO (2012) and the current analysis of the top 40 shark-catching countries, identifies a number of countries that have not yet adopted NPOAs. Many of these are important for chondrichthyan biodiversity as well as for CITES- listed species. A few States do not appear on lists of the world’s major shark fishing countries, although the size of their fleets and/or volume of marine fish catches suggest that they would qualify, if catch data were available to a higher taxonomic level. Examples include Viet Nam and Myanmar, which have very large marine fisheries (ranked globally as the world’s 11th and 16th respectively) but had not reported any shark catches to 2017 and, thus, do not yet appear in shark catch rankings (their shark catches are likely lumped with other unidentified species). Additionally, China is ranked in about 50th place for shark catches, based on FAO data, but reports to FAO the world’s largest catch of all marine fishes combined. It seems possible, therefore, that that China, Viet Nam and Myanmar should also be considered as major shark-fishing countries.

The above analysis does not attempt to evaluate the extent to which NPOAs, once adopted, have been implemented, nor to assess whether the status of shark stocks and performance of shark fisheries management measures have improved as a result.

p. 35

Table 12. Responses to the FAO IPOA–Sharks by top 40 shark catching entities (countries, areas or territories), ranked by reported (FAO FishStat) or inferred shark catches. Country/area/territory Rank 2000-09 Rank 2008-17 NPOA date RPOA date 37 38 Argentina 5 6 2015 (rev. 2009) CFTM 2018 Australia 24 23 2014 (V.2) Brazil 13 9 Proposed 2011 Canada 21 36 2007 Chile 32 39 2006 CPPS CTCPAR 2015 Costa Rica 26 32 2010 PARTCA 2011 Ecuador 40 20 2006 CPPS CTCPAR 2015 France 11 13 EU CPOA 2009 Ghana 39 27 India 2 3 SAR 2015 Indonesia 1 1 2015 (V.2) Iran (Islamic Rep. of) 18 16 Japan 10 14 2011 (V.3) Korea, Republic of 20 18 2011 28 29 Malaysia 9 8 2014 (V.2) Mexico 6 4 2004 Morocco 31 34 Namibia 36 37 2003 New Zealand 14 11 2013 (V.2) Nigeria 17 10 Oman 29 21 2017 Draft Pakistan 8 15 Draft under review Peru 22 17 2014 CPPS CTCPAR 2015 30 31 2017 (V.2) Portugal 15 12 EU CPOA 2009 Russian Federation 35 33 Senegal 25 25 2005 CSRP 2001 South Africa 38 35 2013 Spain 3 2 EU CPOA 2009 Sri Lanka 16 24 2013 Taiwan Prov. of China 4 7 2004 Tanzania, United Rep. 34 22 Thailand 12 26 2005, 2017 (V.2) United Kingdom 19 30 2011 (V.2) EU CPOA 2009 United States of America 7 5 2001 Uruguay 33 40 2015 (V.2) CFTM 2018 Venezuela, Boliv Rep. 27 28 2013 (V.2) Yemen 23 19 China ? ? Myanmar ? ? Viet Nam ? ?

p. 36

7 Conclusions

Conservation Status (section 2) The global conservation status of major commercial shark and ray species is poor and still deteriorating for many species, although there are some early signs of recovery for a few. Poor conservation status is particularly notable for the oceanic pelagic sharks that are the largest source of fins in international trade (over 77% are threatened), and for the shark-like rays from shallow coastal habitats that are among the world’s most threatened cartilaginous fishes. These species groups dominate the chondrichthyan fish taxa listed in the CITES Appendices. The Red List status of most CITES Appendix II sharks has recently been reassessed by IUCN, and several are now known to be more seriously threatened than formerly understood. The oceanic whitetip shark, scalloped hammerhead and great hammerhead sharks have been reclassified as Critically Endangered; whale shark, pelagic thresher and smooth hammerhead shark as Endangered.

Threats (section 3) Excessive fishing mortality is the most widespread threat. Fisheries affect virtually 90% of chondrichthyans and every species listed in the CITES Appendices. Over 90% of CITES-listed species are targeted or retained by at least some fisheries, versus only 26% of all the chondrichthyans. Bycatch impacts 83% of species in large-scale fisheries and 52% of those in small- scale fisheries, but all CITES-listed species are a bycatch in a fishery somewhere. Strengthened fisheries management is urgently required to reduce excessive or unsustainable mortality in target and bycatch fisheries. This is equally important for unlisted species as it is for the pelagic shark and ray species listed in the CITES Appendices.

Fisheries and Trade Status (section 4) Industrial and artisanal fleets supply markets in Asia for processed meat products, shark and ray fins, while fillets of the meat of the same captured sharks is often diverted along separate supply channels to meet demand in growing markets in Europe and South America. Total catches of sharks and rays reported to FAO peaked in 2000, before declining slowly. Most were taken from the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas (37%), followed by the Pacific (33%) and Indian Ocean (26%). The largest shark catchers12 in this and former analyses are Indonesia, India and Spain, followed by Mexico, USA, Argentina, and Taiwan Province of China. The top 40 catchers have remained unchanged since 2000, but these top seven are now reporting a greater proportion of global catches (rising from 48% to 59%). Although the number of catchers reporting more than 1% of the global catch has fallen from 26 to 24 over the past decade, the 24 are now taking 91% of the reported world catch, compared with 85% in earlier years. These figures exclude some major fishing nations that may under-report their shark catches, including China (the world’s largest fishing nation), and Viet Nam and Myanmar (which report no sharks despite being among the world’s 20 fishing nations).

Shark and ray meat and fin trade volumes and value have declined over the past decade. The top 20 importers of shark meat accounted for 90% of global imports over the past 12 years. Europe and South America are the largest retail markets and importers for shark and ray meat. The top meat exporting countries include Spain, Taiwan, Uruguay, USA, Argentina, Portugal, Japan, Namibia, and Indonesia. The four largest importers of shark fin (Hong Kong SAR, Malaysia, China and Singapore) account for almost 90% of the fin trade. Hong Kong Customs records report trade with an average of 83 nations annually, but the largest fin exporters and re-exporters are Singapore, Taiwan, Spain, Peru, United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia.

The taxonomic resolution of catches reported to FAO has improved slightly over the past ten years. In 2017, 62% of global reported chondrichthyan catches were recorded within taxonomic groupings, including 19% under the category ‘Sharks, rays, skates etc, nei’, and 38% at species level. Records

12 The term “shark catchers” refers to countries, territories and other political entities reporting shark catch to FAO.

p. 37

of trade in meat and fins are still mostly not provided at species level. However, genetic analyses of fin trimmings in retail markets identified a very large number of sharks, rays and chimaeras in trade. Four species (three listed in CITES Appendix II) contributed more than 50% of samples analysed, eight additional species contributed >1% each of the global total, and fins from CITES-listed species comprised over 20% of samples.

Management status (section 5) Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP18) – Conservation and Management of Sharks – identifies the importance of maintaining close collaboration between FAO, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, Regional Fishery Bodies, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and other relevant international organisations to improve coordination and synergies in the implementation of CITES provisions for CITES-listed shark species (Annex 8). It, inter alia, encourages Parties to work through the respective mechanisms of these instruments to improve coordination with activities under CITES.

Several of the 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs) coordinated through the UN Regional Seas Programme are actively engaged in the conservation and management of sharks (particularly threatened species) or are developing programmes in this area.

Some 32 Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) have potential to support the implementation of CITES for chondrichthyans, including 14 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). Ten RFMOs have adopted one or more Conservation and Management Measures (CMM) for sharks and/or rays, including eight CMMs for CITES-listed species. Most of the latter prohibit the retention of these species and mandate safe release of sharks caught accidentally; some prohibit intentional purse seine sets on whale sharks. Additional non-species-specific time/area closures and gear restrictions enacted under some RFBs are likely also to reduce fishing mortality of shark and ray species. However, one of the biggest potential synergies lies in improved data collection for and management of CITES-listed sharks taken in fisheries under the RFBs’ remit. As noted in Res. Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP18), this could include making information available to assist Scientific Authorities in the making of Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs) for shared stocks under the remit of the RFB (paragraph 5); recommending and/or adopting precautionary catch limits for CITES-listed shark species, as well as their allocation; adopting traceability systems for their products to ensure their trade is legal; and adopting comprehensive management plans to reduce overfishing, or recovery plans for overfished CITES species such as the oceanic whitetip.

Only one RFMO has adopted a Regional Shark Plan (RPOA) under the framework of the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks): the bilateral Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo/Joint Technical Commission of the Maritime Front (CTMFM). The European Union Community Shark Plan (EU POA) operates at regional and global level (for all EU fisheries within and outside EU waters). All other RPOAs and/or guidance for Shark Plans have been developed and adopted by the advisory RFBs, RSCAPs, or other regional advisory bodies.

At national level: significant progress has been made since FAO’s 2012 review of the implementation of the FAO IPOA–Sharks by the world’s largest shark catchers. Additional large catchers have drafted and/or adopted National Shark Plans (NPOAs) or NPOA Guidance. Several have revised and updated their NPOAs, a few more than once. However, other important fishing countries have still not produced an NPOA or made one publicly available. Among the new top 24 reporting shark catchers, these are: Iran, Nigeria, Oman, Tanzania, and Yemen. China, Myanmar and , countries with major fisheries capacity but low or no reported shark catch, have also not elaborated Shark Plans.

p. 38

References ANONYMOUS (2014a): Casablanca Declaration & Roadmap for the Implementation of CITES Requirements in Relation to Sharks and Manta Rays, Casablanca, Morocco, 13 February 2014. www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/news/sundry/ 2014/casablanca_declaration.pdf ANONYMOUS (2014b): Xiamen Declaration & Action Plan for the Implementation of CITES Requirements in Relation to Sharks & Manta Rays, Xiamen, China, 15 May 2014. www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/news/sundry/2014/xiamen_ declaration_%26_action_plan.pdf ANONYMOUS (2014C): Conclusions on the Development of an Action Plan for the Implementation of the Shark and Ray Listings under CITES by Member Range States in the African Region, Dakar, Senegal, 14 August 2014. www.cites.org/sites/ default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/en-conclusions%20dakar%20action%20plan%20-%20final.pdf ANONYMOUS (2019): Chair’s Report of the 1st Joint Tuna RFMO By-Catch Working Group Meeting (16-18 December 2019, Porto, Portugal). https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/JRFMOs2019/TORS_ENG.pdf BENAVIDES MT, HORN RL, FELDHEIM KA, SHIVJI MS, CLARKE SC, WINTNER S, ET AL. (2011): Global phylogeography of the dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus: implications for fisheries management and monitoring the shark fin trade. Endanger. Species Res. 2011;14:13–22. BOBLME. (2011): Report of the BOBLME Sharks Working Group, 5-7 July 2011, Male, Maldives. BOBLME-2011- Ecology -15. Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project. 50pp. CAMHI MD, VALENTI SV, FORDHAM SV, FOWLER SL, & GIBSON C. (2009): The conservation status of pelagic sharks and rays: Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop. Newbury, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group. p. 78. CAMHI, MD, FORDHAM SV, & FOWLER SL. (2008): Domestic and International management for Pelagic Sharks. In: Camhi, MD, Pikitch EK, Babcock EA. 2008. Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries & Conservation. Blackwell Science. CARDEÑOSA D, FIELDS AT, BABCOCK EA, ZHANG H, FELDHEIM K, SHEA SKH, FISCHER GA & CHAPMAN DD. (2018 a): CITES- listed sharks remain among the top species in contemporary fin trade. Conservation Letters 11:e12457. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12457 CARDEÑOSA D, FIELDS A, ABERCROMBIE D, FELDHEIM K, SHEA SKH, & CHAPMAN DD. (2017): A multiplex PCR mini-barcode assay to identify processed shark products in the global trade. Plos One, 12, e0185368–9. CARDEÑOSA D, QUINLAN J, SHEA KH, & CHAPMAN DD. (2018 b): Multiplex real-time PCR assay to detect illegal trade of CITES- listed shark species. Nature Scientific Reports (2018) 8:16313 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-34663-6. CASHION, MS, BAILLY N & PAULY D. (2019): Official catch data underrepresent shark and ray taxa caught in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Marine Policy 105: 1-9. CAVANAGH RD, FOWLER SL & CAMHI MD. (2008): Pelagic Sharks and the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. In: Camhi MD, Pikitch EK, Babcock EA. 2008. Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation. Blackwell Science. CHAPMAN DD, PINHAL D. & SHIVJI MS. (2009): Tracking the fin trade: genetic stock identification in western Atlantic scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini. Endanger. Species Res. 2009;9:221–228. CLARKE CR, KARL SA, HORN RL, BERNARD AM, LEA JS, HAZIN FH, ET AL. (2015): Global mitochondrial DNA phylogeography and population structure of the silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis. Mar. Biol. 2015;162:945–955. CLARKE S. (2014): Re-examining the shark trade as a tool for conservation. SPC Fisheries Newsletter, 145, 1–8. CLARKE S, MANARANGI-TROTT L, & BROUWER S. (2014): Issues for t-RFMOs in relation to the listing of shark and ray species by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). WCPFC-SC10-2014/ EB-IP-05 https://wcpfc.int/node/18991 CLARKE S. & IOTC SECRETARIAT (2014): Issues for t-RFMOs in relation to the listing of shark and ray species by the CITES with particular reference to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. IOTC–2014–WPEB10–12. http://www.iotc.org/documents/issues-t-rfmos-relation-listing-shark-and-ray-species-cites-particular-reference-indian CLARKE SC, MAGNUSSEN JE, ABERCROMBIE DL, MCALLISTER MK, & SHIVJI MS. (2006 a): Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records. Conservation Biology 20:201–211. CLARKE S, MCALLISTER M, MILNER-GULLAND E, KIRKWOOD G, MICHIELSENS C, AGNEW D, PIKITCH E, NAKANO H, SHIVJI M. (2006 b): Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9:1115–1126. CSRP & FIBA. (2010): Projet d’appui à la mise en oeuvre du Plan Sous-Régional d’Action pour la Gestion et la Conservation des populations de Requins. Secrétariat Permanent de la Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches- CSRP and Fondation Internationale du Banc d’Arguin-FIBA. CSRP. (2001): Plan Sous-Régional d'Action pour la Conservation et la Gestion des Raies et Requins. Comission Sous- Régionale des Pêches-CSRP, Dakar. 9pp. DENT F & CLARKE S. (2015): State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590. Rome, FAO. 187 pp.

p. 39

DIOP M, & DOSSA J. (2011): 30 Years of Shark Fishing in West Africa. Development of Fisheries, Catch Trends, and their Conservation Status in Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Member Countries. Fondation Internationale due Banc d'Arguin (FIBA), Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC/CSRP), Partenariat régional pour la Conservation de la Zone Côtière et Marine de l'Afrique de l'Ouest. 51pp. [available in English and French] DULVY NK, BAUM JK, CLARKE S, COMPAGNO LJV, CORTÉS E, DOMINGO A, FORDHAM S, FOWLER S, FRANCIS MP, GIBSON C, MARTÍNEZ J, MUSICK JA, SOLDO A, STEVENS JD, & VALENTI S. (2008): You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 18:459–482. doi: 10.1002/aqc.975. DULVY NK, FOWLER SL, MUSICK JA, CAVANAGH RD, KYNE PM, HARRISON LR, ... & WHITE WT (2014): Extinction risk and conservation of the world's sharks and rays. eLIFE 2014;3:e00590. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00590 FAO. (2018): Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global Fisheries commodities production and trade 1976-2016 (FishstatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en FAO. (2019): Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global capture production 1950-2017 (FishstatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 2019. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en FAO. (2020): Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global capture production 1950-2018 (FishstatJ). In: FAO Fisheries Division [online]. Rome. Updated 2020. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en FIELDS AT, FISCHER GA, SHEA SKH, ZHANG H, ABERCROMBIE DL, FELDHEIM KA, BABCOCK EA & CHAPMAN DD (2018): Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conservation Biology 32(2): 376–389. FOWLER SL & VALENTI S. (2007): Review of migratory Chondrichthyan Fishes. CMS Technical Report Series No. 15. IUCN– The World Conservation Union / Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). GALVÁN-TIRADO C, DÍAZ-JAIMES P, GARCÍA-DE LEÓN FJ, GALVÁN-MAGAÑA F. & URIBE-ALCOCER M. (2013): Historical demography and genetic differentiation inferred from the mitochondrial DNA of the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Pacific Ocean. Fish. Res. 2013;147:36–46. KYNE PM, JABADO RW, RIGBY CL, DHARMADI, GORE MA, POLLOCK CM, HERMAN KB, CHEOK J, EBERT DA, SIMPFENDORFER CA, & DULVY NK. (2020): The thin edge of the wedge: extremely high extinction risk in wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;1–25 LACK M. & SANT G. (2009): Trends in Global Shark Catch and Recent Developments in Management. TRAFFIC International. LACK M, SANT G, BURGENER M, & OKES N. (2014): Development of a Rapid Management-Risk Assessment Method for Fish Species through its Application to Sharks: Framework and Results. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra Contract No. MB0123. MOGENSEN CB & FOWLER S. (2005): Why hasn't fisheries science enabled managers to implement precautionary elasmobranch management, and could other tools complement their efforts? ICES CM Documents 2005, 8: 1-18. MUNDY-TAYLOR V. ET AL. (2014): CITES Non-detriment Findings Guidance for Shark Species. A Framework to assist Authorities in making Non-detriment Findings for species listed in CITES Appendix II. Report prepared for Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN Germany Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Shark%20NDF%20guidance%20incl%20Annexes.pdf OKES N & SANT G. (2019): An overview of major global shark traders, catchers and species. TRAFFIC. https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/major-global-shark-traders-catchers-and-species/ OLDFIELD TEE, OUTHWAITE W, GOODMAN G. & SANT G. (2012): Assessing the intrinsic vulnerability of harvested sharks. JNCC. http://www.cites.org/common/com/AC/26/E26-09i.pdf PACOUREAU N, RIGBY CL, KYNE PM, SHERLEY RB, WINKER H, CARLSON JK, ... & DULVY NK. (2021): Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 589(7843), 567-571. CCPS (2010): Plan de Acción Regional para la Conservación de tiburones, rayas y quimeras en el Pacífico Sudeste (PAR- CCPS). Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur-CPPS. 34pp. SANT G, GOODMAN G., CROOK V, LACK M & OLDFIELD T. (2012): Fish and Multilateral Environmental Agreements: developing a method to identify high risk commercially-exploited aquatic organisms in trade and an analysis of the potential application of MEAs. JNCC Report No. 453. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6120 SHEA KH, & TO AWL. (2017): From boat to bowl: Patterns and dynamics of shark fin trade in Hong Kong–implications for monitoring and management. Marine Policy, 81, 330–339. TICKLER D, MEEUWIG JJ, PALOMARES ML, PAULY D, & ZELLER D. (2018): Far from home: Distance patterns of global fishing fleets. Science Advances 4, eaar3279 (2018). UN ENVIRONMENT REGIONAL SEAS PROGRAMME. (2015): UN Environment (2016) Regional Seas Strategic Directions (2017- 2020). Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 201. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi. 8pp. VINCENT ACJ, SADOVY DE MITCHESON YJ, FOWLER SL, & LIEBERMAN S. (2014): The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade. Fish and Fisheries, 15, 563–592.

p. 40

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk by unit/stock (Lack et al. 2014), countries of origin, major fishery types, primary uses in trade and availability of data

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets Pelagic IOTC: High ICCAT members Distribution: Indo-Pacific Bycatch in pelagic longline tuna Utilized for food, liver oil Catch and fishing effort data is to be thresher shark, WCFPC: High commit to no Caught by: fisheries and some smaller for vitamin extraction, reported by members of the following Alopias directed fishery for SEP*: Ecuador shark fisheries in the Gulf of hides for leather, and RFMOs: pelagicus any Alopias species , Red Sea and SE fins for shark-fin soup. - IOTC, (BYC 09-07; 2009). Asia. Bycatch in Spanish Most commonly traded - WCFPC (by gear type, including available IOTC prohibits Swordfish longline fleet in the as fins. Threshers were historical data). retention of thresher Indian Ocean. Caught in longline 10th (Field et al. 2017) sharks in commercial fisheries in Indonesia and SE and 12th most common fleets and by Asia. Inshore coastal gillnets, family traded for fins on recreational fishers longlines and offshore (not the Hong Kong market (Res 12/09; 2012). oceanic) longline and gillnets. (Cardeñosa et al. 2017). Bigeye CCSBT: High ICCAT prohibits Distribution: Circumglobal Pelagic longline fisheries in most Utilized for food, liver oil Catch and fishing effort data is to be thresher shark, IATTC: High retention and Caught by: areas; artisanal trammel and for vitamin extraction, reported by members of the following Alopias ICCAT: High landings of Bigeye ECA: Portugal, Spain gillnet fisheries in the hides for leather, fins for RFMOs: thresher, and no Mediterranean; longline and sharkfin soup. superciliosus IOTC: High NEA: Portugal, Spain - ICCAT (must also include size directed fishery for gillnet in SW Atlantic; bycatch of Most commonly traded frequencies), WCPFC: High SEA: Portugal any Alopias species the purse seine fishery operating as fins. Threshers were - IOTC, GFCM: High (BYC 09-07; 2009). SWA: Brazil, Portugal in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. th the 10 (Field et al. - WCPFC (by gear type and including WCA: Mexico, Spain, Venezuela th IOTC prohibits 2017) and 12 most historical data) and retention of thresher MBS: Spain common family traded - GFCM (including gear type and discards). sharks in commercial ECP: USA for fins on the Hong - No data collected by IATTC. fleets and by SEP: Ecuador, Portugal, Spain Kong market recreational fishers (Cardeñosa et al. 2017). Trade data available from CITES Trade (Res 12/09; 2012). SWP: New Zealand Database: 2017 - present Common CCSBT: High ICCAT: no directed Distribution: Circumglobal Caught by offshore longline and Utilized for food, liver oil Catch and fishing effort data is to be thresher shark, IATTC: High fishery for any Caught by: pelagic gillnet fisheries; also for vitamin extraction, reported by members of the following Alopias ICCAT: High Alopias species ECA: Korea, R. fished with anchored bottom and hides for leather, and RFMOs: (BYC 09-07). surface gillnets, and is a bycatch fins for shark-fin soup. vulpinus IOTC: High NEA: France - ICCAT (must also include size IOTC prohibits of other gear including bottom Most commonly traded frequencies), WCPFC: High NWA: USA retention of thresher trawls and fish traps. as fins. Threshers were - IOTC, GFCM: High sharks in commercial SEA: South Africa the 10th (Field et al. - WCPFC (by gear type and including Spain: High fleets and by SWA: Uruguay, Portugal 2017) and 12th most historical data) and recreational fishers EIO: Portugal common family traded - GFCM (including gear type and discards). (Res 12/09; 2012). for fins on the Hong - No data collected by IATTC.

41

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk (continued)

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets WIO: Portugal, France Kong market Trade data available from CITES Trade MBS: France, Italy (Cardeñosa et al. 2017). Database: 2017 - present SWP: New Zealand SEP: Spain ECP: USA; NEP: USA Silky shark, ICCAT: High IATTC prohibits Distribution: Circumglobal Fished either directly or as a Utilized for meat and Landings data is to be collected by Carcharhinus IATTC: High retention by purse Caught by: bycatch throughout its range. It fins. Considered to be members of the following RFMOs: falciformis IOTC: High seiners (Res C-19- ECA: Portugal, Spain, Taiwan, is taken in coastal longline the second most - ICCAT: Annual data for catches of shark, 04; 2019). fisheries, oceanic purse seine commonly traded WCPFC: High Togo including effort, gear, landings and fisheries on drifting FADs (fish species in the fin trade ICCAT prohibits NEA: USA discards, to species level if possible. retention (BYC 11- aggregating devices) targeting (Fields et al. 2017; Discards of silky shark to be recorded with SEA: Taiwan 08; 2011). tuna, swordfish and other billfish Cardeñosa et al. 2017). status (dead or alive). SWA: Brazil, Portugal, Taiwan WCPFC prohibits around the world, and by coastal - IOTC: Annual catches of sharks, to the retention, landing WCA: Costa Rica, Spain, USA artisanal fisheries. Incidental species level where possible. and sale; requires EIO: Sri Lanka, Taiwan catch often retained for meat - WCPFC: Annual data on catch and live release WIO: Iran, , and fins. fishing effort by gear type, noting sharks (2019/04). Portugal, Taiwan, Tanzania that are retained and discarded, specifically ECP: Costa Rica, Guatemala, including data on silky shark. Spain, Taiwan Trade data available from CITES Trade SEP: Ecuador Database: 2017 - present WCP: , Taiwan, Oceanic CCSBT: High IATTC prohibits Distribution: Epipelagic tropical Bycatch of pelagic longline, Primarily traded as Landings data is to be collected by whitetip shark, IATTC: High retention – live and subtropical waters. pelagic gillnets, purse seine, highly valuable fins. members of the following RFMOs: Carcharhinus ICATT: High release required Caught by: handlines, and occasionally Meat may be consumed - CCSBT: Members are required to report (IATTC 11-10; 2011). pelagic and even bottom trawls. locally if retained. longimanus IOTC: High ECA: Portugal under the reporting requirements of ICCAT, ICCAT prohibits Mostly taken in tuna and Ranked the 7th most IOTC and WCPFC. Fishing effort data for WCPFC: High SWA: Brazil, Portugal retention – release swordfish fisheries. Predominant commonly traded fisheries in which oceanic whitetip is taken EIO: China, Sri Lanka whether alive or gear appears to vary by area, species in the fin trade as bycatch are collected. dead (BYC 10 – 07; WIO: China, Iran, Maldives, e.g. catch of oceanic whitetip by (Fields et al. 2017). - IATTC: Requires reporting of discards 2010). Mozambique, Portugal, longline in the WCPO is higher and releases with indication of life status. Tanzania IOTC prohibits than in other oceans due to - ICCAT: Requires reporting for pelagic retention (Res 13/6; ECP: China, Taiwan fishing operations concentrated sharks including oceanic whitetip of catch 2013). SEP: China, Ecuador in equatorial regions. and effort statistics. WCPFC prohibits SWP: China - IOTC: Mandated collection of catch and retention, landing WCP: China, Fiji, Taiwan effort data for oceanic whitetip taken by and sale; requires longline, purse seine and gillnet gear. Res.

p. 42

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk (continued)

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets live release 2013/03 requires shark discards be (2019/04). recorded by species in weight or number for all gears. - WCPFC: Requires data on annual catch (retained and discarded) and fishing effort statistics by gear type for the species. CMM 2019-4 requires discards and life status of discards to be recorded. Trade data available from CITES Trade Database: 2013 - present Basking shark, ICCAT: High NEAFC: no directed Distribution: Coastal-pelagic in Targeted using entangling nets Primarily traded as fins. Landings data is to be collected by the Cetorhinus IATTC: High fishing for basking warm-temperate waters and harpoons and bycatch in gill following RFMOs and countries: maximus NEAFC: High shark (Rec 8:2016; Caught by: nets. Sometimes landed and - ICCAT: Annual data for catches of shark, 2016). sold after becoming entangled in GFCM: High NEA: France, Norway, Portugal including effort, gear, landings and set nets or pot lines, or caught in discards, to species level if possible. New Zealand: MBS: Spain trawls. Bycatch is rarely - GFCM: Shark catch data, including effort, Medium SWP: New Zealand reported. Exceptions are gear, landings and discards, to be reported accidental catches by salmon annually, to species level if possible. and set nets and deep- - New Zealand: Landings and effort data water trawls in Newfoundland, collected; all catch recorded by species. and in deep-water fisheries off - CCPs of NEAFC are urged to make all New Zealand. available data on basking shark available to ICES for evaluation of status. Trade data available from CITES Trade Database: 2001 - present White shark, CCSBT: High Prohibited species in Distribution: Coastal amphi- Targeted in commercial and Teeth, jaws and fins. Landings and effort data must be collected Carcharodon IATTC: High Mediterranean temperate. sports fisheries for jaws, fins, by the following RFMOs and countries: carcharias ICCAT: High (GFCM 42/2018/2) Caught by: game records and aquarium - ICCAT (including size frequencies), display; protective beach IOTC: High ECA: Morocco, Senegal - IOTC meshing. Incidental catch in - WCPFC WCPFC: High ECP: USA longlines, hook-and-line, fixed - GFCM (to species level where possible, GFCM: High bottom gillnets, fish traps, including gear type and discards) USA: High herring weirs, trammel nets, - USA: Landings data required by species. harpoons, bottom and pelagic Trade data available from CITES Trade trawls, and purse seine gear. Database: 2002 - present

p. 43

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk (continued)

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets Shortfin mako CCSBT: High ICCAT’s binding Distribution: Circumglobal Bycatch in tuna and billfish Valued for its meat as Landings and effort data is to be collected shark, IATTC: High recommendation for Caught by: longline and driftnet fisheries, well as its fins and skin. by members of the following RFMOs: Isurus ICCAT: the North Atlantic ECA: Belize, Cote d'Ivoire, particularly in high-seas Oil is extracted for - ICCAT oxyrinchus Medium stock mandates live China, Morocco, Portugal, fisheries, and is an important vitamins and fins for - IOTC release with some coastal recreational species. shark-fin soup. Jaws and IOTC: High Senegal, Spain, Taiwan, Togo, - WCPFC exemptions (ICCAT UK teeth are also sold as WCPFC: High BYC 19-06; 2019). ornaments and trophies. NEA: France, Portugal, Spain, New Zealand: Was ranked as the 5th GFCM prohibits the UK Medium retention of shortfin most common species in NWA: France, Portugal, Spain, mako (36/2012/3). the fin trade in Hong UK Kong (Fields et al. SEA: China, Namibia, Portugal, 2017). South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, UK SWA: Belize, Brazil, China, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan, Uruguay WCA: Belize, Mexico, Panama, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, USA, Venezuela EIO: China, Guinea, Portugal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, UK WIO: Belize, China, France, Guinea, Iran, Mozambique, Portugal, Seychelles, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Tanzania, UK MBS: Libya, Spain ECP: China, Costa Rica, , Portugal, Spain, Taiwan, USA SEP: Chile, China, Ecuador, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay SWP: China, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain WCP: China, Fiji, , Taiwan, Vanuatu

p. 44

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk (continued)

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets Longfin mako CCSBT: High Distribution: Worldwide in Caught as bycatch in tropical Utilized fresh, frozen, Landings and effort data are to be collected shark, IATTC: High temperate and tropical waters pelagic longline fisheries for and dried or salted for by members of the following RFMOs: Isurus paucus ICCAT: High Caught by: tuna, swordfish and sharks and human consumption; - ICCAT (including size frequencies) in other oceanic fisheries, which meat (lower quality), fins IOTC: High ECP: Portugal, Spain - IOTC operate throughout its range. (adult high value), jaws NWA: Spain, USA - WCPFC WCPFC: High (highly prized), skin, SWA: Portugal, Spain cartilage (Compagno, WCA: Spain, Trinidad and 1984). Fins higher value Tobago, Venezuela than meat; enter international trade (Reardon et al. 2006). Porbeagle CCAMMLR: ICCAT requires live Distribution: Circumglobal in Targeted mainly by longline and Primarily utilised and Landings and effort data required to be shark, High release (ICCAT BYC temperate waters of the taken as bycatch mainly in traded as meat. collected by the following RFMO members Lamna nasus CCSBT: High 15-06; 2015). pelagic longline fisheries but and countries: GFCM: High NEAFC prohibits Caught by: also in midwater and bottom - CCAMLR trawling, demersal longline and IATTC: High directed fishing, ECA: Portugal, Spain - GFCM (incl. bycatch, release, discards) requires live release gillnets. ICCAT: High NEA: Faroe Islands, France, - ICCAT (including size frequencies) of bycatch (Rec Norway - IOTC IOTC: High 7:2020). NWA: Canada, Spain - NEAFC (targeting prohibited; all bycatch NAFO: High Prohibited in SEA: Spain must be returned to sea; all retained and NEAFC: High Mediterranean discarded specimens reported by weight) WCFPC: High (GFCM 42/2018/2) SWA: Uruguay - WCPFC (porbeagle catch taken south of EU: High SWP: New Zealand 20 degrees South must be reported) Canada: High - Canada New Zealand: - New Zealand (only catch data) Medium Trade data available from CITES Trade Database: 2012 - present Whale shark, Risk not IATTC & IOTC: Distribution: Circumglobal in Briefly targeted in small-scale Was primarily utilised for Trade data available from CITES Trade Rhincodon assessed prohibit intentional tropical and warm-temperate fisheries; may be encircled in meat; also liver oil, fins, Database: 2004 - present typus purse seine sets on seas tuna purse-seine nets. and . whale sharks, require safe release of accidentally encircled whale sharks (IATTC Res C.2019-06; IOTC

p. 45

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk (continued)

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets 2013/05). WCPFC prohibits retention; sets on tuna associated with whale shark if sighted prior to set (2019/04). Scalloped IATTC: High Retention of all Distribution: Circumglobal in Taken as target and bycatch by Primarily traded as fins. Landings and effort data required to be Hammerhead, ICCAT: High hammerhead coastal warm temperate and trawls, purse seines, gillnets, Was ranked as the 3rd collected by members of the following: Sphyrna lewini IOTC: High species (except for tropical seas. fixed bottom longlines, pelagic (Fields et al. 2017) and - ICCAT: Retention of all hammerhead Sphyrna tiburo) longlines and inshore artisanal 4th (Cardeñosa et al. NAFO: High Caught by: species prohibited; number of discards and prohibited by ICCAT ECA: Mauritania fisheries. 2017) most common releases to be recorded with life status WCPFC: High and GFCM (ICCAT species in the fin trade in SWA: Brazil - IOTC: For fisheries using longline and BYC 10-08, 2010; Hong Kong. gillnet gear but not for purse-seiners GFCM 42/2018/2) WCA: USA, Venezuela SEP: Ecuador Trade data available from CITES Trade Database: 2012 - present Great Risk not Retention of all Distribution: Coastal tropical and Taken by target and as bycatch Primarily traded as fins. Trade data available from CITES Trade hammerhead, assessed. hammerhead warm temperate waters in fisheries using longlines, fixed Ranked the 7th most Database: 2014 - present Sphyrna species (except for worldwide bottom nets, hook-and-line, and commonly traded mokarran S. tiburo) prohibited Caught by: possibly with pelagic and bottom species in the fin trade by ICCAT and WCA: USA, Venezuela trawls. (joint rank with oceanic GFCM (ICCAT BYC white-tip; Fields et al. 10-08, 2010; GFCM 2017). 42/2018/2) Smooth CCSBT: High Retention of all Distribution: Widespread in Caught in a variety of fisheries Utilized for fins, skin, Landings and effort data required to be hammerhead, IATTC: High hammerhead temperate and tropical seas. including artisanal and small- liver-oil, cartilage, teeth. collected by members of the following th Sphyrna ICCAT: High species (except for Caught by: scale commercial fisheries, Ranked the 4 most RFMOs: S. tiburo) prohibited bottom longlines as well as commonly traded zygaena IOTC: High ECA: Morocco, Portugal, Spain - IATTC (including gear type) by ICCAT and offshore pelagic longlines and species in the fin trade WCPFC: High NEA: Portugal, Spain - ICCAT: Retention of all hammerhead GFCM (ICCAT BYC gillnets. (Fields et al. 2017). species prohibited; number of discards and GFCM: High WIO: Iran 10-08, 2010; GFCM releases to be recorded with life status SEP: Ecuador 42/2018/2) - IOTC SWP: New Zealand Trade data available from CITES Trade Database: 2014 - present Manta rays, Risk not IATTC, IOTC, Distribution: Circumglobal Caught as bycatch and targeted Utilized for meat, Currently catches are not recorded by Mobula assessed WCPFC prohibit Caught by: (categorised under throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, medicine and branchial countries submitting to the FAO at species

p. 46

Annex 1. CITES Appendix II and other major traded shark species’ Management Risk (continued)

Risk of over- Range and catching Primary uses and Species RFMO Prohibitions Major fishery types Catch and trade data availability exploitation countries (FAO, 2018) consumer markets (Manta), two targeting, retention ‘Mantas, devil rays nei’): and Indian Oceans with a variety filter plates (gill rakers) level, except for the Giant manta, but in species and sale any EIO: Indonesia, Sri Lanka of gear types including from Mobula. Used for groupings of 'Mantas, devil rays nei' mobulids (IATTC C- WCP: Indonesia harpooning, netting and trawling. traditional Chinese (average catch of 4471 tonnes/year; 2015-04; IOTC 2019- Bycatch in purse seine, gillnet, medicine. increasing trend) and 'Rays, stingrays, 03; WCPFC 2019- and trawl fisheries. mantas nei' (127 220 tons/year, increasing 05) trend, FAO 2019). Mobulid/devil Risk not IATTC, IOTC, Distribution: Worldwide Caught in commercial and Primarily traded for their rays, Mobula, assessed WCPFC prohibit distributions in tropical and artisanal, target and bycatch, gill plates. Meat, nine species targeting, retention temperate waters of Pacific, fisheries throughout their global cartilage and is and sale (IATTC C- Atlantic and Indian Oceans. range in the Atlantic, Pacific and also utilised but not as 2015-04; IOTC 2019- Caught by: (categorised under Indian Oceans. important as gill plates. 03; WCPFC 2019- ‘Mantas, devil rays nei’): 05) EIO: Indonesia, Sri Lanka GFCM probibits M. WCP: Indonesia mobular (42/2018/2) Blue shark, CCSBT: High ICCAT TACs in Distribution: wide ranging, found Rarely targeted by commercial Primarily traded as fins. Catch data recorded at species level in the Prionace IATTC: High North Atlantic (BYC in tropical, subtropical and fisheries, but a major bycatch of Was the most abundant FAO FishStat database. glauca ICCAT:Mediu 2019-07) and South temperate waters. longline and driftnet fisheries, in international trade – ICCAT has a non-binding resolution for m Atlantic (BYC 2019- Reported as landed by the particularly on high-seas. ranked number 1 most catch recording and data submission. 08) common species found IOTC: High following top countries: IOTC Res18/02 adopted in 2018 requires in the fin trade market in WCPFC: High AO and adjacent seas: Spain, catch monitoring, recording and reporting. Portugal, Brazil, Taiwan (Prov. Hong Kong, Fields et al. China), Namibia. 2017; Cardeñosa et al. 2017. Meat popular in IO: Indonesia, Spain, Taiwan Spanish markets, and in Province of China. Asia processed as PO: Mexico, Spain. surimi.

*AO: Atlantic Ocean, NWA: Northwest Atlantic, WCA: Western Central Atlantic, ECA: Eastern Central Atlantic, SWA: Southwest Atlantic, SEA: Southeast Atlantic; IO: Indian Ocean, WIO: Western Indian Ocean, EIO: Eastern Indian Ocean; PO: Pacific Ocean, NWP: Northwest Pacific, NEP: Northeast Pacific, WCP: Western Central Pacific, ECP: Eastern Central Pacific, SWP Southwest Pacific, SEP: Southeast Pacific; MBS: Mediterranean and Black Sea.

p. 47

Annex 2. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with current Conservation and Management Measures for sharks, rays and chimaeras RFMO CMM Ref Date Title Species Summary Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) CCAMLR CM 33-02 2020 Limitation of by-catch in Statistical Division spp., skates If by-catch in a haul is equal to, or greater than, 2t of Somniosus spp., or 2t of 58.5.2 in the 2017/18 season and rays. skates and rays, then the fishing vessel shall not use that fishing method within 5 n miles of the location where the by-catch limit is exceeded for at least five days. CCAMLR CM 33-03 2020 Limitation of by-catch in new and exploratory Skates and rays Bycatch limit for skates and rays: 5% of the catch limit of Dissostichus spp. fisheries in current season CCAMLR CM 32-18 2006 Conservation of Sharks All sharks Prohibits directed fishing on shark species prohibited. Live release of shark by- catch as far as possible. Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCBST) CCBST 2018 Resolution to Align CCSBT’s Ecologically sea birds, sea turtles, Binding ERS measure. Requires CCSBT Members to follow the ERS measures Related Species measures with those of sharks, cetaceans of other relevant tuna RFMOs other tuna RFMOs CCBST 2011 Recommendation to Mitigate the Impact on sea birds, sea turtles, CPCs to implement the IPOA-Sharks and comply with all current binding and Ecologically Related Species of Fishing for sharks recommendatory measures adopted by IOTC, ICCAT, WCPFC. Reporting, data Southern Bluefin Tuna collection etc. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) GFCM 42/2018/2 2018 On fisheries management measures for the 24 species of sharks Finning, beheading and skinning of specimens before landing prohibited. Trawl conservation of sharks and rays in the and rays, Shark finning nets prohibited within 3 n miles of or shallower than 50 m. Prohibited to retain on GFCM area, amending Recommendation board, transship, land, transfer, store, sell elasmobranchs listed in SPA/BD GFCM/36/2012/3 Barcelona Convention Protocol Annex II (endangered or threatened spp). GFCM 39/2015/4 2015 On management measures for piked dogfish Squalus Will develop management measures to achieve MSY no later than 2020. CPCs to in the Black Sea acanthias adopt these and to protect a % of trawl grounds. Evaluate effectiveness by 2018. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) IATTC Res. C-19- 2019 Conservation of whale sharks Whale shark Prohibits intentional net sets on whale sharks. Requires safe release and 06 reporting of accidental sets. IATTC Res. C-19- 2019 Conservation measures for shark species, Silky sharks Prohibition on retention by purse seiners. Limit of 20% bycatch on longlines not 04 with special emphasis on silky shark for Carcharhinus falciformis licenced to take sharks. If sharks targeted, catch of silky sharks <100 cm must not years 2020 and 2021 exceed 20% of all silky sharks. Reduced use of wire leaders if % exceeded. Small vessels exempted. No fishing in pupping areas. Data requirements. IATTC Res. C-16- 2016 Amendment to Resolution C-05-03 on the All sharks Research into shark species, gear selectivity, improved handling practices to 04 Conservation of sharks caught in maximise post-release survival. association with fisheries in the E. Pacific

48 Annex 2. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with Conservation and Management Measures for sharks, rays and chimaeras (continued)

RFMO CMM Ref Date Title Species Summary IATTC Res. C-16- 2016 On the management of shark species All sharks, specifically Data collection and reporting. Safe release requirements. 05 silky, hammerheads, whale sharks IATTC IATTC 15-04 2015 On the conservation of mobulid rays caught Mantas and mobulas Retention prohibited. Live release following guidelines required. Data recording in association with fisheries in the IATTC and reporting. Artisanal fleets exempted. convention area IATTC IATTC 11-10 2011 On the conservation of Oceanic whitetip Oceanic whitetip sharks Retention prohibited. Live release required. Data recording and reporting. sharks caught in association with fisheries in the Antigua Convention Area IATTC IATTC 05-03 2005 On the Conservation of sharks caught in All sharks CPCs should establish and implement NPOAs. Full utilisation. No finning, with a association with fisheries in the Eastern 5% fin:carcass ratio. Live release, research, data requirements. Pacific International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) ICCAT BYC 19-08 2019 Management measures for conservation of Blue shark Annual TAC established. Allocation to be decided by 2021. South Atlantic blue shark caught in association with ICCAT fisheries ICCAT BYC 19-07 2019 Amending Rec 16-12 on management Blue shark Annual TAC established. Catch limits for EU, Japan, Morocco; other CPCs to measures for the conservation of the North maintain at recent levels. To be reviewed in 2021. Atlantic blue shark caught in association with ICCAT fisheries ICCAT BYC 19-06 2019 On the conservation of North Atlantic shortfin Shortfin mako Prompt live release, with exemptions (when dead), data collection and reporting, mako caught in association with ICCAT maintain historical catch levels. Research. fisheries. ICCAT BYC 18-06 2018 On improvement of compliance review of All sharks Non-binding. Reporting on implementation and compliance with shark conservation and management measures conservation and management measures. Finning, data reporting, porbeagle, regarding sharks caught in association with mako, bigeye thresher, oceanic whitetip, hammerheads, silky sharks ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT BYC 15-06 2015 On Porbeagle caught in association with Porbeagle Binding. Live release. Data collection, research. ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT BYC 14-06 2014 On Shortfin Mako Caught in Association with Shortfin Mako Binding. Improve catch recording and reporting. Research. ICCAT Fisheries. ICCAT BYC 13-10 2013 On Biological Sampling of Prohibited Shark Bigeye thresher (09-07), Binding. Only use dead specimens. Permits required. Reporting requirements. Species by Scientific Observers. Oceanic whitetip (10- 07), Hammerhead (10- 08), Silky (11- 08).

p. 49 Annex 2. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with Conservation and Management Measures for sharks, rays and chimaeras (continued)

RFMO CMM Ref Date Title Species Summary ICCAT BYC 12-05 2012 On Compliance with Existing Measures on bigeye thresher (09-07), Binding. All CPCs submit to the ICCAT Secretariat details of their implementation Shark Conservation and Management. oceanic whitetip (10- of and compliance with shark conservation and management measures [Recs. 07), hammerhead (10- 04-10, 07-06, 09-07, 10-08, 10-07, 11-08 and 11-15]. 08), silky (11- 08). ICCAT BYC 11-08 2011 On the Conservation of Silky Sharks Caught Silky shark Binding. Prohibit retention. Release whether dead or alive. Increase survival in Association with ICCAT Fisheries. rates. Collect and report data. ICCAT BYC 10-08 2010 On hammerhead sharks (Family Hammerhead sharks Binding. Prohibit retention all hammerhead sharks (except for Sphyrna tiburo). Sphyrnidae) caught in association with Release/discard, alive or dead. Collect and report data, including condition on fisheries managed by ICCAT. release. Research into nursery grounds. Capacity-building ICCAT BYC 10-06 2010 On Atlantic shortfin mako sharks caught in Shortfin mako Binding. CPCs to report on implementation/ compliance with Recs 04-10, 05-05, association with ICCAT fisheries 07-06; steps to improve data collection. No data reporting by CPCs and species is prohibited for that CPC. SCRS stock assessment in 2012 and advice on annual catch levels to support MSY. ICCAT BYC 10-07 2010 On the Conservation of Oceanic Whitetip Oceanic whitetip shark Binding. Prohibit retention. Release whether dead or alive. Collect and report Shark Caught in Association with Fisheries data, including condition on release. in the ICCAT Convention Area ICCAT BYC 09-07 2009 On the Conservation of Thresher Sharks Thresher Sharks Binding. Prohibits retention and landings of bigeye thresher (Alopias Caught in Association with Fisheries in the superciliosus). Mx small-scale coastal fishery exempted. No directed fishery for ICCAT Convention Area any Alopias spp. Collect and report data and condition on release. Implement research to identify and protect nursery areas. ICCAT BYC 07-06 2007 Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Porbeagle, shortfin Binding. Data reporting. Reduce fishing mortality in fisheries targeting porbeagle Concerning Sharks mako. (Lamna nasus) and North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. Research. Identify nursery areas. Porbeagle stock assessment by 2009. ICCAT BYC 04-10 2004 Concerning the Conservation of Sharks All sharks Binding. Finning prohibition (5% fin:carcass ratio). Data collection. Live release. Caught in Association with Fisheries Research into nursery areas & selective fishing gears. Stock assessments in Managed by ICCAT. 2005 & by 2007. ICCAT BYC 03-10 2003 Resolution by ICCAT on the Shark Fishery All sharks Non-binding. CPCs to provide data on catches, gear, landings, trade. Implement NPOAs ICCAT BYC 95-02 1995 On Cooperation with FAO With Regard to All sharks Non-binding. FAO will be the focal point for data collection and coordinate Study on the Status of Stocks and By- RFMOs. CPCs provide data to and cooperate with FAO. Catches of Sharks. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) IOTC Res. 19/03 2019 On the Conservation of Mobulid Rays All mobulid rays Binding. Prohibits targeting, retention, landing; requires implementation of Caught in Association with Fisheries in the handling procedures & live release and data reporting. Derogations for IOTC Area of Competence subsistence fishers/ consumption, until 2022 for artisanal fishers. Bycatch may be consumed locally. Sampling plans required for artisanal bycatch.

p. 50 Annex 2. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with Conservation and Management Measures for sharks, rays and chimaeras (continued)

RFMO CMM Ref Date Title Species Summary

IOTC Res. 19/02 2019 Resolution 18.08 on FADs updated Mainly silky sharks IOTC Res. 18/02 2018 Management measures for the conservation Blue shark Catch monitoring, recording and reporting. Scientific research. There should be a of Blue shark caught in association with stock assessment in 2021 when management options will be considered. IOTC Fisheries. IOTC Res. 18/04 2018 On BIOFAD Experimental project Mainly silky sharks Aims to reduce impact and amount of synthetic marine debris IOTC Res. 18/06 2018 On Establishing a Programme for All species taken by Establishes monitoring at sea, register of vessels authorised to receive Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing large-scale tuna transhipments at sea, observer and reporting requirements Vessels longliners IOTC Res. 18/08 2018 Procedures on a fish aggregating devices Mainly silky sharks Procedures on a fish aggregating device (FAD) management plan, including (FADs) management plan, including a specifications of catch reporting from FAD sets, and the development of improved limitation on the number of FADs, more FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of non-target species. Sets detailed specifications of catch reporting upper limit for FADs per vessel and sets marking requirements. Data recording from FAD sets, and the development of and reporting requirements. Management plans must aim to minimise bycatch. improved FAD designs to reduce the Annex III specifies changes to design and deployment, including phasing out incidence of entanglement of non-target spp entangling FADs. IOTC Res. 17/05 2017 Concerning the conservation of sharks All sharks Finning prohibited ("fins-attached" for fresh sharks, 5% ratio for frozen; CPCs caught in association with fisheries managed encouraged to move to fins-attached for frozen). Encourages live release of by IOTC shark bycatch. Requires shark catch data reporting. Encourages shark research. IOTC Res. 15/09 2015 On a fish aggregating devices (FADs) Mainly silky sharks working group IOTC Res. 13/05 2013 On the conservation of whale sharks Whale shark Prohibits intentional purse seine sets on whale sharks, and requires safe release Rhincodon typus of accidentally encircled whale sharks. Requires reporting of data and encounters. CPCs should adopt non-entangling FADs (relevant to silky shark) IOTC Res. 13/06 2013 A scientific and management framework on Oceanic whitetip shark Prohibits retention of oceanic whitetip shark (exemption for research sample the conservation of shark species caught in collection). Encourages data collection and reporting for all sharks, and research. association with IOTC fisheries IOTC Res. 12/09 2012 On the conservation of thresher sharks Thresher sharks, Prohibits retention of thresher sharks in commercial fleets and by (Family Alopiidae) caught in association with Alopiidae, all species recreational/sports fishers. Mandates live release and data collection. fisheries in the IOTC agreement area Recreational fishers must carry gear to allow live release. North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) NEAFC 08 2021 Conservation and Management Measures Squalus Binding. Prohibits directed fishing. Live release of bycatch. Data. Encourages for Piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in acanthias NOT CITES similar measures in national waters. NEAFC Regulatory Area for 2021 & 2022. LISTED NEAFC 09 2020 Conservation and Management Measures Deep sea sharks NOT Binding. Prohibits directed fishing on deepwater sharks (17 named species) in for Deep Sea Sharks CITES LISTED the NEAFC Regulatory Area for 2020 to 2023

p. 51 Annex 2. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with Conservation and Management Measures for sharks, rays and chimaeras (continued)

RFMO CMM Ref Date Title Species Summary NEAFC 10 2020 Conservation and Management Measures Deep sea rays NOT Binding. Prohibits directed fishing on deepwater rays (Raja fyllae, Raja for Deep Sea Rays () CITES LISTED hyperborea, Raja nidarosiensis) in the NEAFC Regulatory Area NEAFC 11 2020 Conservation and Management Measure for Deep sea chimaeras Binding. Prohibits directed fishing on deep sea chimaeras in the NEAFC Deep Sea Chimaeras NOT CITES LISTED Regulatory Area, 2020-2023 NEAFC 7 2020 Conservation and Management Measures Porbeagle Lamna nasus Binding. Prohibits directed fishing in NEAFC regulatory area. Live release of for Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) bycatch. Data. Encourages similar measures in national waters. NEAFC 8 2020 Conservation and Management Measures Basking shark Binding. No directed fishing in NEAFC Convention Area. Data reporting. for Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) NEAFC 10 2015 Conservation of sharks associated with All sharks Binding. Mandates retention of all parts of the shark excepting head, guts & skins Fisheries Managed by the North-East to the point of first landing. Prohibits removal of shark fins at sea, retention on Atlantic Fisheries Commission board, transhipment, landing of shark fins. Data. Research. Gear selectivity. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) NAFO Article 12 2019 Conservation and Enforcement Measures / All sharks Binding. CPs must report all catches; prohibit removal of shark fins on board Article 12 – Conservation and Management vessels; prohibit retention, transhipment and landing of detached fins; encourage of Sharks live release. Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO) SEAFO 01/2008 2008 Banning of deep-water shark catches Deepwater sharks Non-binding. Recommended to ban deep-water shark directed fisheries until additional information becomes available to identify sustainable harvesting levels. SEAFO 04/2006 2006 On the Conservation of Sharks Caught in All species Binding. Report data. Prohibit finning (5% fin:carcass weight ratio). Encourage Association with SEAFO Fisheries live release of bycatch. Research to identify ways to make gears more selective. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) WCPFC 2019/04 2019 Conservation and Management Measures All sharks, rays, Binding. Implement IPOA–Sharks. Apply ‘fins-attached’. Data collection. Bycatch for Sharks chimaeras mitigation (wire leaders and shark lines banned). WCPFC 2019/04 2019 Conservation and Management Measure for Silky and Oceanic Binding. Prohibits retention, landing, sale etc. Release promptly alive. Bycatch (VI.20) Sharks Whitetip sharks mitigation and live release guidelines, in addition to measures listed above. WCPFC 2019/04 2019 Conservation and Management Measure for Whale sharks Binding. CCMs shall prohibit setting a purse seine on tuna associated with a (VI.21) Sharks whale shark if sighted prior to the commencement of the set. If not deliberately encircled in the purse seine net, ensure safe release and report incident. WCPFC 2019/05 2019 Conservation and Management Measure on Mobulid rays Prohibits target fishing/intentional setting of nets on; retention, transhipment, Mobulid Rays caught in association with landing; requires prompt live release. CMM includes best practice guidance. fisheries in the WCPFC Convention Area

p. 52

Annex 3. Regional Fishery Bodies of relevance to or engaged in shark conservation and management Acronym Name Ocean Region Website Tuna Advisory Shark CPPs RFMO RSCAP RFMO RFB action APFIC Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission Indo-Pacific Asia http://www.apfic.org 21  No BOBP-IGO Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Indian Ocean/ Asia www.bobpigo.org 4   Organization Bay of Bengal CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Trans-ocean Antarctic www.ccamlr.org 25    Marine Living Resources CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Trans-ocean Southern www.ccsbt.org 14   Bluefin Tuna Oceans CECAF Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic Africa - 34  ? Atlantic COMHAFAT- Ministerial Conf on Fisheries Cooperation Atlantic Africa www.atlafco.org 14  ? ATLAFCO among African States Bordering Atlantic COREP Regional Commission of Fisheries of Gulf of Atlantic Africa www.corep-se.org 5  ? Guinea CPPS Permanent Commission for the South Pacific Pacific South America www.cpps-int.org 4   CRFM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Caribbean Central-South www.crfm.int 16   America www.crfm.net CSRP Commission Sous-Regionale des Peches / Atlantic West Africa www.spcsrp.org 7   (SRFC) Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. CTMFM Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo / Atlantic South America - www.ctmfm.org Joint Technical Commission of the Maritime Argentina & 2   Front Uruguay FCWC Fishery Committee of the West Central Gulf of Atlantic Africa www.fcwc-fish.org 6  ? Guinea FFA Forum Fisheries Agency Pacific Pacific Islands www.ffa.int 17   GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Mediterranean & www.gfcmonline.org 24   Mediterranean Black Sea IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Pacific West Americas www.iattc.org 25   ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation Atlantic & Scandinavia, www.iccat.int of Atlantic Tunas adjacent seas Europe, Africa, 51   Americas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Atlantic Scandinavia, www.ices.dk 20   Sea Europe

p. 53

Annex 3. Regional Fishery Bodies of relevance to or engaged in shark conservation and management (continued)

Acronym Name Ocean Region Website Tuna Advisory Shark CPPs RFMO RSCAP RFMO RFB action IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Indian www.iotc.org 34   NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Atlantic North America & www.nafo.int 12   Greenland NEAFC North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission Atlantic Europe www.neafc.org 5   NPFC North Pacific Fisheries Commission Pacific Asia, North http://nwpbfo.nomaki.j 7 No America p OLDEPESCA Latin American Organization for Fisheries Caribbean & Latin America http://www.oldepesca. Development/Organización Latinoamericana Pacific (N/C/S America) com 12   de Desarrollo Pesquero OSPESCA Central American Fisheries and Aquaculture Caribbean & http://www.sica.int/osp Organization / Organización del Sector Pacific esca 8   Pesquero y Acuícola del Istmo Centroamericano PERSGA Regional Organization for the Conservation of Indian Red Sea www.persga.org 7   the Environment of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden RECOFI Regional Commission for Fisheries Indian Gulf http://www.fao.org/fish 8   ery/rfb/recofi/en SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Pacific Southeast Asia www.seafdec.org 11     SEAFO South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation Atlantic Africa www.seafo.org 7 SIOFA South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement Indian Africa, Asia, 8  No Oceania SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community Pacific Oceania www.spc.int 25   SPRFMO South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Pacific Oceania www.sprfmo.int 14   Organisation WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Pacific Oceania to Asia www.wcpfc.int 43   Commission WECAFC/ Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Atlantic North, Central, http://www.fao.org/fish COPACO South America & ery/rfb/wecafc/en 34   Caribbean

p. 54

Annex 4. Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs) Convention/Action Plan Region Website Action on sharks and rays Parties Abidjan Convention, WACAF West Africa/ www.abidjanconv No. Decision CP.12/14: Illegal trade, illicit trafficking, Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Southeast ention.org consumption and other uses of protected, Congo DR, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Atlantic endangered and/or vulnerable marine and coastal Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, fauna and flora. Mentions CITES, bycatch. Engaged Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and in negotiations re. BBNJ instrument (on conservation Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction). Antigua Convention for Cooperation in the Pacific, Not located None known Colombia, Costa Rica, , Guatemala, Protection and Sustainable Development of Northeast Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Northeast Pacific Apia Convention / Secretariat of the Pacific Pacific www.sprep.org Shark Conservation Officer on staff Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, France, Kiribati, Marshall Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, USA, Vanuatu. (Territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis & Futuna, Tokelau) Barcelona Convention & Mediterranean Mediterranean www.rac-spa.org Regional Chondrichthyan Biodiversity Action Plan, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Croatia, Action Plan Species listed in Annexes II and III to the Protocol on Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Specially Protected Areas. Annex II list adopted by Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, GFCM for prohibited status Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, EU Cartagena Convention/Caribbean Caribbean www.unenvironm Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata added to Annex Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Environment Programme (CEP) ent.org/cep II of the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican (SPAW) Protocol (2019). SPAW priorities include Republic, France, Grenada, Guatemala, , collaboration with CITES re. enforcement over illegal Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands, wildlife trade. Annex III spp. (exploitation regulated) Nicaragua, Panama, St. Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, include Oceanic Whitetip, Silky, & Whale sharks; St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad Scalloped, Great & Smooth hammerhead sharks & Tobago, UK, USA, Venezuela, EU CCAMLR, Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic www.ccamlr.org Yes, see Annex 2 Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Antarctic Marine Living Resources European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, USA, Uruguay.

p. 55 Annex 4. Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (continued)

Convention/Action Plan Region Website Action on sharks and rays Parties COBSEA coordinates the Action Plan for the East Asia www.cobsea.org None known Australia, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Protection and development of the Marine Korea (Republic of), Malaysia, Philippines, and coastal areas of the East Asian Region Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam Convention for the Protection of the Marine Pacific, www.cpps-int.org Regional Shark Plan Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru Environment and Coastal Areas of the South- Southeast East Pacific, SE Pacific AP HELCOM, coordinates the Helsinki Baltic www.helcom.fi None known Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Convention and the Baltic Sea Action Plan Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Sweden, European Community Nairobi Convention (East Africa Action Plan) Indian Ocean, www.unep.org/Nai Developing regional roadmap for shark and ray Comoros, France, Kenya, Madagascar, , Western robiConvention conservation and management, Reviewing proposed Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, list of species of concern for inclusion on Protocol Republic of South Africa Annexes. North West Pacific Action Plan (no Pacific, None No People’s Republic of China, Republic of Korea, convention) Northwest Japan, Russian Federation OSPAR Convention, (Northeast Atlantic) Atlantic, www.ospar.org List of Threatened and/or Declining species, including Belgium, Denmark, EU, Finland, France, Germany, Northeast Basking shark, Porbeagle, Spiny dogfish; species Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, case reports and recommendations. MOU with Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK NEAFC. PERSGA, Programme for the Environment of Red Sea and www.persga.org Also advisory RFB. Regional capacity-building in Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Gulf of Aden elasmobranch species identification and fisheries Somalia, Sudan, Yemen stock assessment for shark populations in PERSGA Member States. Training courses. Baseline surveys. ROPME (Kuwait Convention and Action Plan) Persian Gulf/ www.ropme.net Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Gulf of Oman Arabia, United Arab Emirates South Asia Cooperative Environment South Asia www.sacep.org Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri Lanka Programme (SACEP) / South Asian Seas Action Plan (SASAP)

p. 56

Annex 5. Shark and ray species listed in Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Regional Fisheries Management Organization Conservation and Management Measures

SHARKS MEA listings International Trade RFMO Conservation and Management Measures Scientific name English name CITES CMS Fins Meat Other GFCM IATTC ICCAT IOTC WCPFC Other 2019-04 BYC 11-08, 12- 19/03,15/09, Carcharhinus falciformis Silky shark II II ✖✖ 2019-04 VI.20 2018-05 05, 13-10, 16-19 18/04,18/08 Oceanic whitetip BYC 10-07, 12- Carcharhinus longimanus II I ✖ 2011-10 2013/06 2019-04 VI.20 shark 05, 13-10, 16-19 ✖ Carcharhinus obscurus Dusky shark - II ✖ Prionace glauca Blue shark - II ✖✖ BYC 19-07 & 08 2018/02 ✖

Scalloped BYC 10-08, 12- Sphyrna lewini II II ✖ 36/2012/3 2016-05 hammerhead 05, 13-10, 16-19 BYC 10-08, 12- Sphyrna mokarran Great hammerhead II II ✖ 36/2012/3 2016-05 05, 13-10, 16-20 BYC 10-08, 12- Sphyrna zygaena Smooth hammerhead II II ✖ 36/2012/3 2016-05 05, 13-10, 16-21 ✖ Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Thresher II II 2012/09 BYC 09-07, 12- Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Thresher II II ✖ 2012/09 05, 13-10, 16-19 ✖ ✖ Alopias vulpinus Common Thresher II II BYC 09-07 2012/09

Cetorhinus maximus Basking Shark II I II 36/2012/3 NEAFC 20-08 Carcharodon carcharias White Shark II I II ✖ 36/2012/3 ✖ BYC 19-06, 14- Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako II II ✖ 36/2012/3 ✖ 06, 10-06 ✖ Isurus paucus Longfin mako II II ✖ ✖ Lamna nasus Porbeagle shark II II 36/2012/3 BYC 15-06 NEAFC 20-07 ✖ Rhincodon typus Whale Shark II I II 2019-06 2013/05 2019-04 VI.20 ✖ Squalus acanthias Spiny dogfish - II 39/2015/4 NEAFC 21-08

Squatina squatina - I II 36/2012/3 Key: Oceanic-pelagic/primarily pelagic species Coastal, benthic species

p. 57 Annex 5. Shark and ray species listed in Multilateral Environmental Agreements and RFMO Conservation and Management Measures (continued)

P. 58 Annex 5. Shark and ray species listed in Multilateral Environmental Agreements and RFMO Conservation and Management Measures (continued)

RAYS MEA listings International Trade RFMO Conservation and Management Measures Scientific name English name CITES CMS Fins Meat Other GFCM IATTC ICCAT IOTC WCPFC Other Manta alfredi Reef Manta Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Manta birostris Oceanic Manta Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Mobula eregoodootenkee Pygmy Devil Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Mobula hypostoma Atlantic Devil Ray II I II Mobula japanica Spinetail Mobula II I II ✖ 2015-04 Mobula kuhlii Shortfin Devil Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Mobula mobular Giant Devil Ray II I II ✖ 36/2012/3 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Mobula munkiana Munk’s Devil Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 Mobula rochebrunei Lesser Guinean Devil Ray II I II Mobula tarapacana Chilean Devil Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Mobula thurstoni Bentfin Devil Ray II I II ✖ 2015-04 2019-03 2019-05 Anoxypristis cuspidata Narrow sawfish I I II Pristis clavata Dwarf Sawfish, I I II Pristis pectinata Smalltooth Sawfish I I II 36/2012/3 Pristis pristis Largetooth Sawfish I I II 36/2012/3 Pristis zijsron Green Sawfish I I II

Rhynchobatus australiae White-spotted/ Bottlenosed Wedgefish II I II ✖

Rhynchobatus djiddensis White-spotted Wedgefish II ✖

Family Rhinidae White-spotted Wedgefishes II ✖

Rhinobatos rhinobatos Common Guitarfish II (I) II ✖ 36/2012/3

Glaucostegus cemiculus Blackchin Guitarfish II ✖ 36/2012/3

Family Glaucostegidae Giant Guitarfishes II ✖ Key: Oceanic-pelagic/primarily pelagic species Coastal, benthic species

P. 59

Annex 6. Capture production (mt) by species and groups of species, 2009–2018. Source: FAO (2020) FishStat. Those species marked with an asterisk* were assessed with regards to their management risk (see Annex 1; Lack et al. 2014).

Species/Grouping 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Species Blue shark* 89 216 110 182 130 005 135 340 138 686 120 298 103 636 109 419 103 738 100 000 Picked dogfish* 15 637 13 186 15 515 18 073 13 234 17 024 15 725 17 870 16 968 13 714 Shortfin mako* 11 940 12 108 14 475 14 165 13 354 14 067 11 777 13 354 12 615 11 684 Small-spotted 6 124 6 463 6 568 6 162 7 119 6 776 7 637 8 225 7 474 7 890 Narrownose smooth-hound 9 476 8 264 6 867 6 062 4 572 4 538 4 420 4 014 3 142 2 711 Silky shark* 4 859 8 920 8 681 7 133 7 413 5 446 4 818 6 247 6 064 7 474 Thornback ray 3 588 4 378 4 663 5 305 5 576 5 409 5 370 5 516 5 927 6 468 Tope shark 5 328 5 233 4 724 4 452 4 330 4 360 4 308 4 069 4 013 4 045 Whitespotted wedgefish 9 002 3 498 4 241 3 097 3 492 7 483 3 540 2 268 707 500 Little 3 836 4 214 4 511 4 987 5 008 4 235 3 619 3 220 2 925 3 754 5 276 5 534 4 568 3 726 3 066 3 217 2 989 2 957 2 425 2 002 Cuckoo ray 4 309 5 419 4 892 3 850 3 266 3 479 3 562 3 131 3 014 3 292 Pelagic thresher* 190 225 212 232 6 927 6 114 5 096 4 976 4 767 3 880 Southern 25 26 542 1 943 3 141 2 641 3 107 6 734 6 094 7 310 2 653 2 365 2 325 2 150 2 299 2 229 2 324 2 650 2 677 2 504 Milk shark 0 516 634 3 017 3 295 4 050 4 161 3 025 7 660 3 613 Plownose chimaera 3 805 2 700 2 904 2 183 1 533 1 336 3 123 2 500 1 820 1 909 Blonde ray 1 323 2 028 2 223 2 300 2 321 2 498 2 549 2 390 2 332 2 724 Dark ghost shark 1 993 2 229 2 184 2 300 1 584 1 641 1 326 1 348 1 443 1 330 1 922 1 962 1 714 1 609 2 080 1 960 1 532 1 554 1 984 1 487 Spotted ray 1 527 1 497 1 877 1 887 1 678 1 623 1 510 1 553 1 606 1 969 Ghost shark 1 650 1 610 1 443 1 511 1 668 1 392 1 433 1 476 1 575 1 320 Spotted smooth- 1 244 1 318 1 277 1 332 1 324 1 364 1 394 1 425 1 527 1 369 hound Smooth-hound 314 512 1 820 1 063 1 396 1 093 1 187 1 272 1 358 3 213 Starry ray 711 1 039 1 337 1 880 1 752 1 643 1 246 1 213 491 771 Lusitanian cownose ray 0 1 166 1 125 2 911 1 129 1 596 1 569 796 2 369 273 Pacific angelshark* 882 1 116 813 778 924 984 1 093 905 1 236 1 053 Blackmouth catshark 443 418 875 898 1 070 1 599 1 719 1 363 1 329 1 782 Kitefin shark* 257 282 198 155 1 207 2 057 1 952 2 412 1 232 433 Dusky smooth-hound 1 231 1 747 1 264 1 007 950 831 593 454 540 575 Nursehound* 713 709 792 564 707 629 826 1 099 995 1 163 Cape elephantfish 623 859 765 781 660 632 1 010 600 1 007 524 New Zealand smooth skate 525 573 565 573 580 645 657 706 866 744 Angelshark* 76 97 79 125 50 125 183 175 132 5 951 Yellownose skate 1 331 1 459 714 817 628 432 562 549 264 282 Night shark 0 0 0 0 0 1 237 1 190 911 1 145 1 040 Oceanic whitetip shark* 1 058 1 085 752 694 395 217 303 76 165 391 359 304 299 253 406 353 455 400 514 550

p. 60

Annex 6. Capture production (mt) by species and groups of species, 2009–2018 (continued)

Species/Grouping 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Spottail shark 0 0 0 707 896 564 997 409 274 478 0 0 0 354 438 1 107 499 818 544 239 Rabbit fish 189 288 402 453 550 479 295 309 351 360 Porbeagle* 736 270 157 231 144 132 107 61 90 69 Blacktip shark 187 179 353 391 260 385 128 186 194 158 Shagreen ray 321 434 359 323 321 264 261 209 252 269 Leafscale 453 382 215 183 120 184 97 114 113 156 Blackchin guitarfish 0 161 119 46 97 170 241 153 242 1 770 * 438 271 590 655 559 0 0 0 0 0 Sandy ray 165 240 252 251 239 249 245 252 254 270 207 147 136 83 138 245 246 366 327 411 Thresher* 327 250 169 171 187 168 149 143 196 85 Smooth hammerhead* 132 61 167 294 483 183 280 200 115 41 * 155 188 257 248 266 240 212 85 115 14 Bigeye thresher* 104 27 27 87 440 403 248 245 267 257 Small-eyed ray 224 334 270 298 223 229 209 97 192 260 Longnosed skate 84 20 49 44 42 145 419 393 448 661 Blue skate 205 158 172 154 145 139 146 123 157 197 Giant guitarfish 104 98 135 187 215 174 241 295 332 303 Pacific guitarfish 79 47 85 780 147 296 2 162 93 101 Scalloped hammerhead* 109 336 212 265 237 55 121 94 166 28 160 120 0 1 52 5 3 4 4 3 60 19 20 27 22 19 29 394 415 412 14 21 0 0 220 261 109 218 146 165 Rio skate 237 417 221 108 89 24 9 15 0 2 Smallnose fanskate 187 424 84 96 54 85 67 17 27 72 Spotted eagle ray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 370 370 Japanese topeshark 0 589 488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiny 9 152 49 60 75 196 69 88 272 9 Smooth butterfly ray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 331 340 340 * 105 90 68 15 34 54 27 18 77 0 Mediterranean starry ray 3 6 8 6 38 34 168 151 212 321 * 77 49 114 76 33 79 55 70 125 130 * 171 221 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bull shark* 86 60 136 41 32 125 18 50 72 59 Caribbean sharpnose shark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 297 283 White skate* 87 83 64 27 28 18 91 108 223 75 Big skate 1 0 0 4 21 41 35 312 196 135 Undulate ray 26 12 22 8 3 22 69 133 218 228 Eyespot skate 73 288 43 35 16 29 18 139 78 25 Spinetail mobula 50 52 57 66 87 75 87 101 51 41 Copper shark* 86 112 39 76 31 67 48 57 60 11 Whiteleg skate 187 56 29 107 33 55 17 33 25 20 Longfin mako* 0 2 0 2 20 64 42 41 287 148

P. 61

Annex 6. Capture production (mt) by species and groups of species, 2009–2018 (continued)

Species/Grouping 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Gulper shark* 41 8 9 11 5 7 14 9 20 16 48 64 91 121 74 33 31 15 18 23 31 49 16 17 6 24 13 47 110 163 Brown ray 0 0 0 0 0 2 56 74 121 282 Sharpnose stingray 36 37 35 34 42 40 53 63 60 48 Velvet belly 5 16 8 15 21 49 32 63 133 118 Longtail stingray 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 185 90 Common eagle ray 37 22 67 23 32 39 46 42 58 33 Atlantic weasel shark 0 14 17 6 1 25 54 66 248 0 Bluntnose sixgill shark* 35 33 22 26 64 34 53 36 50 33 Giant manta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201 177 Broadnose skate 182 0 42 25 11 41 57 0 0 0 Barbeled 0 111 82 17 24 2 72 50 0 0 Brazilian sharpnose shark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 119 110 Finetooth shark 41 9 32 11 56 6 5 3 11 44 * 76 50 19 3 4 2 2 2 4 4 Smalltail shark* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 104 103 Longnose 33 9 0 1 21 14 9 16 11 10 Cownose ray 0 80 128 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 Common guitarfish 90 69 44 44 0 1 3 2 27 8 Lemon shark* 48 25 39 29 13 9 18 1 20 27 Spinner shark 18 13 40 8 25 40 18 31 40 32 Spinetail ray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 164 Arrowhead dogfish 0 3 2 7 1 0 9 108 90 0 Sailray 0 0 17 13 12 8 31 15 28 93 Great hammerhead 0 0 0 0 17 19 22 44 44 67 Eaton's skate 8 14 5 2 36 22 5 21 45 31 Starry smooth-hound 15 7 8 30 19 16 19 20 16 20 * 95 81 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 Broadnose sevengill shark* 27 25 17 20 13 18 13 9 5 4 Kerguelen sandpaper skate 1 0 16 0 55 55 7 9 13 15 Chola guitarfish 0 26 3 10 12 38 15 12 0 53 34 6 17 13 14 6 4 1 4 0 Great white shark* 0 18 92 11 25 7 0 0 0 0 Spotback skate 25 60 4 4 5 8 5 16 0 0 Common stingray 6 12 9 11 7 10 13 6 7 8 Basking shark* 7 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bignose fanskate 53 39 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Arctic skate 1 3 2 2 2 2 23 6 12 13 Patagonian skate 20 12 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 Norwegian skate 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California butterfly ray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 1 3 4 5 4 4 Antarctic starry skate 6 5 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 5

P. 62

Annex 6. Capture production (mt) by species and groups of species, 2009–2018 (continued)

Species/Grouping 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Brown smooth-hound 2 3 0 0 10 1 0 3 11 0 * 1 1 2 0 5 0 8 5 7 4 Slender smooth-hound 0 0 1 2 0 1 11 6 3 8 Mouse catshark 7 5 5 1 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific cownose ray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Sharptooth houndshark 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Devil fish 3 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chilean torpedo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Murray's skate 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sharpnose sevengill shark 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Sand tiger shark* 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Silver chimaera 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 * 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bramble shark* 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Round ray 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plunket shark 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted ratfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Madeiran ray 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pelagic stingray 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Whip stingray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dusky catshark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McCain's skate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dusky shark* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Straightnose rabbitfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dark-belly skate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual subtotal (mt) by 200 338 222 847 244 925 252 854 256 506 244 920 220 339 213 621 226 257 222 522 species

*Assessed M-Risk species not listed as species-specific landings by FAO: Deepwater Spiny Dogfish Centrophorus squamosus Shovelnose Spiny Dogfish calcea Common smoothhound Mustelus mustelus Spotted smoothhound Mustelus lenticulatus Large sleeper shark Somniosus microcephalus

P. 63

Annex 6. Capture production (mt) by species and groups of species, 2009–2018 (continued)

Species/Grouping 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grouping Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei 247 988 226 407 244 511 250 405 251 207 215 705 222 641 221 244 209 996 194 400 Rays, stingrays, mantas nei 122 477 118 440 117 424 121 385 110 058 116 772 153 212 148 954 133 264 141 176 Stingrays, butterfly rays nei 45 590 38 294 40 983 47 746 45 080 50 004 27 185 31 361 17 601 33 884 Requiem sharks nei 40 150 35 807 34 486 39 688 35 581 40 184 29 390 26 472 25 049 18 254 Rays and skates nei 29 075 24 854 21 434 19 619 15 958 17 594 16 218 16 295 16 792 14 821 Hammerhead sharks, etc. nei 4 673 6 611 6 487 4 388 4 459 5 940 7 026 10 334 7 277 10 625 Smooth-hounds nei 13 250 12 637 13 534 10 762 11 059 12 627 14 818 13 294 13 408 9 801 Dogfish sharks nei 13 618 10 446 7 459 9 049 8 705 8 393 7 059 8 208 8 383 8 314 Various sharks nei 11 221 12 280 11 207 1 895 2 895 2 927 3 277 1 302 1 666 1 220 Mantas, devil rays nei 2 414 2 447 3 731 5 935 6 318 4 651 4 803 8 083 7 218 7 217 Eagle rays nei 4 849 4 314 4 379 4 203 6 460 9 078 8 220 6 493 6 965 4 748 Thresher sharks nei 12 283 18 423 22 478 13 594 14 796 12 880 5 136 4 795 4 888 4 116 Guitarfishes, etc. nei 2 383 1 971 2 065 1 889 2 682 5 176 5 256 2 941 1 810 3 788 Ratfishes nei 1 186 1 141 723 739 815 841 844 796 1 038 1 094 S.Am. freshwater stingrays nei 0 0 743 749 755 910 896 865 838 835 , etc. nei 499 412 466 493 514 532 522 483 623 607 Catsharks, nursehounds nei 1 002 937 992 878 570 499 539 619 706 597 , sand devils nei 178 247 186 202 262 187 142 434 453 469 nei 374 310 367 266 314 285 290 268 310 302 Sawfishes 201 463 94 57 313 17 405 271 55 281 Mackerel sharks, porbeagles nei 1 272 1 079 1 333 1 440 1 410 1 508 1 193 1 161 327 268 Lanternsharks nei 65 63 40 36 91 267 250 175 299 266 Chimaeras, etc. nei 122 104 99 92 116 114 123 115 115 145 Torpedo rays 96 106 110 70 77 78 79 67 83 74 Dogfishes and hounds nei 821 901 921 932 852 853 922 28 61 62 Mobula nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Mako sharks 33 13 23 21 17 10 24 29 21 40 Bathyraja rays nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 3 Psammobatis sand skates nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elephantfishes, etc. nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stingrays nei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual subtotal (mt) by grouping 555 820 518 707 536 275 536 533 521 364 508 032 510 472 505 089 459 253 457 457

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Annual subtotal (mt) by 200 338 222 847 244 925 252 854 256 506 244 920 220 339 213 621 226 257 222 522 species Annual subtotal (mt) by 555 820 518 707 536 275 536 533 521 364 508 032 510 472 505 089 459 253 457 457 grouping Annual total (mt) 756 158 741 554 781 200 789 387 777 870 752 952 730 811 718 710 685 510 679 979

P. 64

Annex 7. CITES Resolutions and Decisions related to sharks and rays

Annex 7. CITES Resolutions and Decisions related to sharks and rays Conf. 12.6 Conservation and management ∗ (Rev. CoP18) * of sharks1

RECOGNIZING that many sharks are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation owing to their late maturity, longevity and low fecundity; RECOGNIZING that there is a significant international trade in sharks and their products; RECOGNIZING that unregulated and unreported trade is contributing to unsustainable fishing of a number of shark species; RECOGNIZING the duty of all States to cooperate, either directly or through appropriate sub-regional or regional organizations in the conservation and management of fisheries resources; RECALLING that a number of shark species are included in Appendices I and II; NOTING the complexity of the implementation of CITES trade controls for shark trade, but also the notable successes in the implementation of the shark and ray listings; RECALLING that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, international trade in CITES- listed sharks and their parts and derivatives shall only take place if it is legally acquired, non- detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild and properly reported; CONCERNED that outstanding implementation challenges need to be addressed to ensure that international trade in CITES-listed sharks and their parts and derivatives is conducted and managed in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; WELCOMING the availability of several guidelines and examples for the making of non-detriment findings (NDFs) for trade in CITES-listed sharks; RECOGNIZING that the International Plan of Action on the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA- sharks) was prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 1999 and that all States whose vessels conduct directed fisheries or regularly take sharks in non-directed fisheries are encouraged by FAO's Committee on Fisheries (COFI) to adopt a National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Shark Stocks (NPOA-Sharks); NOTING that there has been slow progress with the development and implementation of NPOAs; CONCERNED that insufficient progress has been made in achieving shark management through the implementation of IPOA-Sharks except in States where comprehensive shark assessment reports and NPOA- Sharks have been developed; and WELCOMING the entry into force of the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in 2016 and recognizing the value it offers to improve compliance with CITES provisions for listed shark and ray species;

THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION 1. INSTRUCTS the Secretariat to maintain close collaboration with FAO, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and other relevant international organizations to improve coordination and synergies in the implementation of CITES provisions for CITES-listed shark species; 2. ENCOURAGES the Secretariat and Parties to continue to assist in building financial and technical capacity in developing countries for shark and ray activities under CITES;

* Amended at the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th meetings of the Conference of the Parties. 1 For the purposes of this Resolution, the term “shark” is taken to include all species of sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras, in alignment with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA- Sharks).

P. 65

Annex 7. CITES Resolutions and Decisions related to sharks and rays

3. ENCOURAGES Parties to improve data collection and reporting (where possible by species and gear type), adopt management and conservation measures for shark species, and enhance implementation and enforcement of these actions through domestic, bilateral, RFMOs or other international measures; 4. URGES Parties that are shark fishing States, that have not yet done so, to develop NDFs, as well as an NPOA, at the earliest opportunity or, when insufficient information is available, take steps to improve research and data collection at the species level on both fisheries and trade as a first step towards developing an NPOA Sharks and making NDFs, with a view to establishing long-term data collection on the status of shark and ray stocks; 5. INVITES Parties that engage in directed or non-directed shark fishing activities of shared stocks to collect and share, on a regional basis such as through RFMOs/RFBs or other regional collaborations, where they exist, data on effort, catches, live releases, discards, landings and trade (to species level and by gear type where possible), and make this information available to assist Scientific Authorities in the making of NDFs of such shared stocks; 6. ENCOURAGES Parties that are members of or Parties to other relevant international instruments, such as RFMOs, RFBs or CMS, to improve coordination between the respective national focal points, where appropriate, and work through the respective mechanisms of these instruments to strengthen research, training and data collection and improve coordination with activities under CITES; 7. FURTHER ENCOURAGES Parties to share information about stricter domestic measures pertaining to shark fisheries and trade, in particular zero export quotas or trade bans; 8. REQUESTS Management Authorities to collaborate with their national customs authorities to expand their current classification system to allow for the collection and reporting of detailed data on shark trade including, where possible, separate categories for processed and unprocessed products, for meat, cartilage, skin and fins, and to distinguish imports, exports and re-exports and between shark fin products that are dried, wet, processed and unprocessed fins. Wherever possible, these data should be species-specific; 9. INSTRUCTS the Secretariat to monitor discussions within the World Customs Organization regarding the development of a customs data model, and the inclusion therein of a data field to report trade in sharks at species level, and to issue Notifications to the Parties concerning any significant developments; 10. ENCOURAGES Parties, in close cooperation with FAO, RFBs and RFMOs, to undertake or facilitate continued research to improve understanding of the nature of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing concerning sharks, identify the linkages between international trade in shark fins and meat, and IUU fishing; 11. FURTHER ENCOURAGES Parties, intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies to develop robust, low-cost tools and systems, where not already existing, to ensure that shark species, in particular CITES- listed species, are identified accurately at the first point of capture/landing, and undertake studies of trade in all shark products; 12. INVITES Parties to share through the Secretariat their experiences in implementing CITES provisions for listed shark species, in particular NDFs, legal acquisition findings and traceability systems; 13. DIRECTS the Animals Committee to periodically examine new information provided by range States on the implementation of the shark listings and other available relevant data and information; 14. DIRECTS the Animals Committee to make species-specific recommendations if necessary on improving the conservation status of sharks and implementation of shark and ray listings; 15. DIRECTS the Standing Committee to provide guidance on regulatory matters in connection to the implementation of the shark listings, including but not limited to the determination of legal acquisition, traceability and enforcement issues, as appropriate; and 16. DIRECTS the Animals Committee and Standing Committee to report progress on shark and ray activities at the meetings of the Conference of the Parties, as appropriate.

P. 66

Annex 7. CITES Resolutions and Decisions related to sharks and rays

CoP18 DECISIONS ON SHARKS AND RAYS (ELASMOBRANCHII SPP.)1

18.218 Decision directed to: Parties Parties are encouraged to: a) provide information to the Secretariat in support of the study called for in Decision 18.221 paragraph a), in particular on any national management measures that prohibit commercial take or trade, and in response to the Notification called for in Decision 18.220; b) in accordance with their national legislation, provide a report to the Secretariat about the assessment of stockpiles of shark parts and derivatives for CITES-listed species stored and obtained before the entry into force of the inclusion in CITES in order to control and monitor their trade, if applicable; c) inspect, to the extent possible under their national legislation, shipments of shark parts and derivatives in transit or being transhipped, to verify presence of CITES-listed species and verify the presence of a valid CITES permit or certificate as required under the Convention or to obtain satisfactory proof of its existence; and d) continue to support the implementation of the Convention for sharks, including by providing funding for the implementation of Decisions 18.219, 18.221 and 18.222, and considering seconding staff members with expertise in fisheries and the sustainable management of aquatic resources to the Secretariat.

18.219 Decision directed to: Secretariat Subject to external funding, the Secretariat shall continue to provide capacity-building assistance for implementing Appendix-II shark and ray listings to Parties upon request.

18.220 Decision directed to: Secretariat The Secretariat shall: a) issue a Notification to the Parties, inviting Parties to: i) provide concise summaries of new information on their shark and ray conservation and management activities, in particular: A. the making of non-detriment findings; B. the making of legal acquisition findings; C. the identification of CITES-listed shark-products in trade; and D. recording stockpiles of commercial and/or pre-Convention shark fins for CITES Appendix-II elasmobranch species and controlling the entry of these stocks into trade; and ii) highlight any questions, concerns or difficulties Parties are having in writing or submitting documentation on authorized trade for the CITES Trade Database; b) provide information from the CITES Trade Database on commercial trade in CITES-listed sharks and rays since 2000, sorted by species and, if possible, by product; c) disseminate existing guidance identified, or newly developed, guidance on the control and monitoring of stockpiles of shark parts and derivatives pursuant to paragraph 18.224 paragraph b) by the Standing Committee; and d) collate this information for the consideration of the Animals Committee and the Standing Committee.

1 For the purposes of these Decisions, the term “shark” is taken to include all species of sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras, in alignment with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).

P. 67

Annex 7. CITES Resolutions and Decisions related to sharks and rays

18.221 Decision directed to: Secretariat The Secretariat shall, subject to external funding, and in collaboration with relevant organizations and experts: a) conduct a study to investigate the apparent mismatch between the trade in products of CITES- listed sharks recorded in the CITES Trade Database and what would be expected against the information available on catches of listed species; b) bring the results of the study in a) to the attention of the Animals Committee or Standing Committee, as appropriate.

18.222 Decision directed to: Secretariat The Secretariat, subject to external funding, is requested to collaborate closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to: a) verify that information about Parties’ shark management measures are correctly reflected in the shark measures database developed by FAO (http://www.fao.org/ipoa-sharks/database-of- measures/en/) and, if not, support FAO in correcting the information; b) compile clear imagery of wet and dried unprocessed shark fins (particularly, but not exclusively, those from CITES-listed species) along with related species level taxonomic information to facilitate refinement of iSharkFin software developed by FAO; c) conduct a study analysing the trade in non-fin shark products of CITES-listed species, including the level of species mixing in trade products and recommendations on how to address any implementation challenges arising from the mixing that may be identified; and d) bring the results of activities a) to c) to the attention of the Animals Committee or Standing Committee, as appropriate.

18.223 Decision directed to: Animals Committee The Animals Committee, in collaboration with relevant organisations and experts, shall: a) continue to develop guidance to support the making of NDFs, in particular in data-poor, multi- species, small-scale/artisanal, and non-target (bycatch) situations, for CITES-listed shark species; and b) report the outcomes of its work under Decision 18.223, paragraph a) to the 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

18.224 Decision directed to: Standing Committee The Standing Committee shall: a) develop guidance on the making of legal acquisition findings, and related assessments for introductions from the sea for CITES-listed shark species in the context of the implementation of Resolution Conf. 18.7 on Legal acquisition findings; b) develop new guidance or identify existing guidance on the control and monitoring of stockpiles of shark parts and derivatives, in particular for specimens caught prior to the inclusion of the species in Appendix II; and c) report its findings under Decision 18.224, paragraphs a) and b) to the 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

18.221 Decision directed to: Animals Committee and Standing Committee The Animals Committee and Standing Committee shall analyse and review the results of any of the activities under Decisions 18.221 and 18.222 brought to their attention by the Secretariat, and with the support of the Secretariat prepare a joint report for the 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the implementation of these Decisions.

P. 68